The United States of America has a notable tradition of disenfranchising its felons. Indeed, the United States disenfranchises more people than any other nation in the world.1 As such, Americans are beginning to reconsider their support for felon disenfranchisement.2 While several states have greatly restored felons’ voting rights, others impose practical or financial barriers to the franchise. One such common example of these hurdles is the legal financial obligation (“LFO”) requirement. Under these schemes, felons must first pay off any outstanding fees, fines, or restitution stemming from their conviction prior to regaining the right to vote. Given that many felons are indigent or of lower socioeconomic status, these LFOs are often the only thing excluding millions of felons from the ballot box.
One such LFO scheme exists in the State of Florida. Since the enaction of its 1838 Constitution, Florida has automatically disenfranchised people convicted of any felony.3 However, in 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4, a constitutional referendum restoring the right to vote to felons not convicted of violent crimes (that is, murder and sexual offenses) who had satisfied all the terms of their sentence. The next year, the Florida Legislature passed S.B. 7066, which implemented the amendment.4 However, the law requires felons to pay off all of their LFOs before their right to vote can be restored. As a result, many eligible felons who cannot afford to pay will remain disenfranchised. Further, because the Florida Legislature failed to provide a central process (or resources) to identify and pay LFOs, many eligible felons who can pay will remain disenfranchised for an undetermined period of time until their individual cases are resolved. Despite a district court finding that S.B. 7066 was unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed in a 6-4 en banc decision, holding that the LFO requirement violated neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.
Using S.B. 7066 as a case study, this Note will argue that this scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. I will argue that, given the importance of the right to vote, heightened scrutiny of S.B. 7066 is warranted. In the alternative, I will also analyze S.B. 7066 under rational basis scrutiny. Either way, I conclude that S.B. 7066 fails both tests. Finally, I will argue that S.B. 7066 amounts to a poll tax and is thus unconstitutional.