While Florida generally makes it challenging for people in the state with felony convictions to regain their voting rights, former President Donald Trump had no issue casting a ballot for himself Tuesday in Palm Beach.
The thing is, which law? I can’t find it. Florida’s website redirects to their constitution and their constitution. Doesn’t. Say. That.
It doesn’t carve out that exception, and there would need to be a law that automatically reinstated him instead of just never removing him. Because a law that doesn’t remove him, violates their constitution.
“No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.”
mean that it excludes it when the other state doesn’t have a rule removing rights? Maybe a lawyer can explain it to me, but following the links to the actual law seems to contradict what’s on the page from how I understand it. Also what’s in the page seemed to get edited there as soon as people started asking about it.
I think the important part is that it’s florida that’d be removing them, and the rest of it that I didn’t copy is how florida restores them. This is Florida’s constitution. If we interpreted that way, he can never get them back. Florida took them away and he cannot have them back until NY restores them, which they can’t
Well that’s the thing Florida doesn’t remove them in the first place if the other state doesn’t. Your interpretation would create a legal catch-22 which doesn’t make sense per the default of people having rights.
Because he was convicted in New York and according to Florida law the state that he was convicted ins laws apply as far as his voting rights.
The thing is, which law? I can’t find it. Florida’s website redirects to their constitution and their constitution. Doesn’t. Say. That.
It doesn’t carve out that exception, and there would need to be a law that automatically reinstated him instead of just never removing him. Because a law that doesn’t remove him, violates their constitution.
I don’t know, I was parroting the article.
I know. I’m just annoyed that no news source has backed up this claim with the actual law that supposedly exempts him.
Yeah it’s really interesting to me that you weren’t able to find it. Because that’s not the first time I’ve read that.
And law libraries are pretty thorough.
I’ve done some digging in them myself.
https://dos.fl.gov/elections/for-voters/voter-registration/felon-voting-rights/
That’s the thing I’ve read before, but does
“No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.”
mean that it excludes it when the other state doesn’t have a rule removing rights? Maybe a lawyer can explain it to me, but following the links to the actual law seems to contradict what’s on the page from how I understand it. Also what’s in the page seemed to get edited there as soon as people started asking about it.
“Until restoration of civil rights” is the important bit. Since NY hasn’t removed his civil rights he doesn’t have to “restore them”.
I think the important part is that it’s florida that’d be removing them, and the rest of it that I didn’t copy is how florida restores them. This is Florida’s constitution. If we interpreted that way, he can never get them back. Florida took them away and he cannot have them back until NY restores them, which they can’t
Well that’s the thing Florida doesn’t remove them in the first place if the other state doesn’t. Your interpretation would create a legal catch-22 which doesn’t make sense per the default of people having rights.