Another Florida voter fraud case dismissed. Miami judge calls BS on statewide prosecutor
In August, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ announced that his “elections police” were cracking down on the scofflaws who dared to vote. In the corresponding wave of arrests that followed, nearly 20 people were arrested for “voter fraud” – their crime? Voting, even though Florida’s Amendment 4 excluded people required to register a a sex offender or had a past conviction of murder.
Never mind that these people had paid their debt to society. Never mind that they applied for and were issued voter registration cards. Never mind that the prevailing confusion was that government officials told them they could vote, sent them voter applications or (again) issued them voter registration cards. And never mind that the heinous crime for which they were pulled out of their homes and handcuffed for was casting a ballot in an election. Not the crime you would think of when you think “voter fraud”, not the public nuisance you would think requires a special state-wide elections police or prosecution team.
In this, NOW THIRD case to be dismissed since the governor held a press conference announcing the arrests, Circuit Judge Laura Anne Stuzin ruled that statewide prosecutors didn’t have the ability to bring charges against the defendant. Two other defendants had charges dismissed and one, so far, took a plea that avoided jail time.
As if the arrests were not petty and enough of a waste of resources, the state has indicated that it intends to appeal the decision.
Bravo!! Bravo!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🤗
Is it just me or did this seem like a trap from the start? Make it appear “ALL” ex-felons have the right to vote, then arrest them and get them back in custody so they can never be able to get off the registry?
I am one of those people who tries to see through the red tape, it is what made me a good detective back in the day. Although I was not always right, I considered every angle of a story, clue, incident, avoidance and evidence possible.
I feel sorry for the one who took a plea and wonder what that entailed? Probation? A fine? An arrest on their record that cannot be removed? The one who took a plea should have their’s thrown out as well. Not their fault they were pressured to cave. That is the only reason I got sent to prison. The judge denied my claim of a forced confession.
I have been on both sides of the law and believe me, it is scarier going into the system as an ex-cop and being interrogated for 8 hours without an attorney by another cop broke me.
Amendment 4 is facially illegal. It has (in 2018) been ruled by a federal judge that the process of appearing before the governor’s tribunal was unconstitutional.
Therefore (without due process) it is STILL unconstitutional to require ANYONE (including registrants) to undergo that process.
There was no due process.
Therefore, Amendment 4 is facially unconstitutional!
OK – this is not correct.
How am I not correct?
in 2018, a federal judge declared the process of the governor’s tribunal (in order to regain one’s rights) to be unconstitutional.
In order to address this, the State of Florida amended the constitution (Amendment 4 – 2018).
But, They carved out registrants and murderers, declaring that these 2 groups must still undergo the same process of appearing in front of a governor’s tribunal in order to regain their rights.
This process was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2018!
Do I have my facts wrong? Perhaps I am wrong. But, I don’t think so.
I don’t think Amendment 4 mentions the tribunal.
https://casetext.com/case/hand-v-scott-4
Hand v. Scott had nothing to do with Amendment 4. That case was decided in Feb 2018. Amendment 4 was passed in November of 2018. It didn’t even address Amendment 4.
I’m not trying to throw something in your face here, but it’s important we don’t misinform people. Amendment 4 WAS NOT declared “facially illegal”. Amendment 4 is the law. More specifically, effective January 8, 2019, convicted felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole and probation, and were not convicted of murder or sexual offenses are eligible to register to vote. Period. That’s the current law, never declared illegal.
Keep in mind that some people are in this mess (voting illegally) because they were misinformed by others and relied on that misinformation. We can’t have that happen here.
I never said that “It was declared illegal”.
I also never said that the Hand v. Scott judgement was commenting on amendment 4 (that would have been temporally impossible, obviously.)
I said that this amendment is illegal on its very face.”
That is my opinion, and I believe very strongly that I am right.
The fact is that amendment 4 is a direct result of Hand v. Scott.
1.) Amendment 4 resulted from that decision (Hand v. Scott)
2.) Hand v. Scott is what spurred the Florida legislature to act.
3.) Hand v. Scott very clearly says that the old scheme of the governor’s tribunal is unconstitutional (illegal):
“…Having determined that Florida’s vote-restoration scheme is unconstitutional, this Court must
determine the appropriate relief. …”
4.) Certain ex-felons are still required to subject themselves to an unconstitutional procedure (governor’s tribunal).
5.) No due process was undertaken to make an exception for certain ex-felons.
Therefore: FL Amendment 4 (2018) is illegalk because it violates the US constitution without giving any due process!
That is (only) MY opinion.
JJJJ, why are you debating this? On December 9, 2022 at 11:30 am, you wrote “Amendment 4 is facially illegal.” If your opinion is that it is facially illegal but the courts in Jones and McCoy didn’t agree with your opinion that it’s illegal, nor did the 11th Circuit, you can believe as strongly as you want that you are right, but you will be wrong. You can strongly believe that DUI laws are facially illegal, but drive through a sobriety check with a .15 and you’ll probably be arrested.
I completely disagree with all your points, but that’s my opinion. We can respect each other’s opinions, but not share them with our readers as if they are fact. Here’s the FACT… Amendment 4 was enacted into law and until a COURT agrees with your opinion it is LEGAL. It is 1000% the law and as much as we disagree with the law we encourage our readers to follow the law. I think the registry is illegal in 100 ways but I would not be that reckless to make a statement that it’s facially illegal and then reference a federal court decision that had nothing to do with it.
Keep in mind people JUST got arrested because they voted after someone gave them misinformation. If someone votes, gets arrested, and then tells the Judge that they read in FAC’s forum that Amendment 4 was facially illegal the judge will laugh at them.
We need to be responsible to our members and not perpetuate misinformation.
JJJJ, Please cite the case you are referring to. Jones v. Governor of Florida, 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020) ruled that Amendment 4 could not prevent the plaintiffs from voting based solely on their genuine inability to pay legal financial obligations. So Amendment 4 had not been declared facially unconstitutional at that time and has not since.
Theres a new section in our reporting paperwork that we need to sign that states we may not be able to vote in big red letters. I still dont understand why we need to sign all this every time we do anything but its just been put on there in volusia with the other 17 initials we need to put and fingerprint
Can the one who took a plea have it overturned since I would imagine they were under duress during the situation given everything that “could” happen to them before these cases were being dismissed?
Not being an attorney I cant say with certainty but I believe they have two years to change a plea.
DeSantis got what he intended; thousands of people were too afraid to vote. Our dictatorial governor created his ‘Election Police’ squad to intimidate people and it absolutely contributed to his reelection as Govenor for another 4 years. I thought voter intimidation is against the law but maybe that law is not applicable if you are a taxpayer supported public servant?