The Recent Voting-Rights “Restoration” Payments In Florida Should be Investigated
Billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, recently announced that he has paid off the court fines and fees for 32,000 Black and Latino ex-felons in Florida, thereby allowing them to register for the November elections. This was done in response to a recent ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the effect of which prevented ex-felons in Florida from voting until they paid back fines, fees, and restitution, which were part of their sentence. According to Bloomberg, “The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and no American should be denied that right. Working together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, we are determined to end disenfranchisement and the discrimination that has always driven it.” While such feigned generosity “sounds” nice, it should be investigated by the appropriate state and/or national officials .
Florida Statute, Section 104.061(2), specifically states:
104.061 Corruptly influencing voting.—
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.
In light of the statutory language, the question is whether the decision to pay the court fines and fees (something “of value”) of 32,000 specific ex-felons (namely Blacks and Latinos) violates this statute? In other words, by focusing on these specific groups, is the payor trying to empower one political party by bribing a certain group of people to vote a certain way? Does the conduct constitute an improper effort to buy votes or to corruptly influence a person in casting his or her vote?
As recently reported by The Washington Post:
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and his team have raised more than $16 million to pay the court fines and fees of nearly 32,000 Black and Hispanic Florida voters with felony convictions, an effort aimed at boosting turnout for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The money will fund a program organized by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition to pay the fines, fees and restitution costs for former prisoners who are already registered to vote in Florida but barred by law from participating in the election because of those outstanding debts.
Bloomberg, who has committed at least $100 million to electing Biden in the state, raised the money from individuals and foundations over the past week, his advisers said. He saw the donations as a more cost-effective way of adding votes to the Democratic column than investing money to persuade voters who already have the right to vote, a Bloomberg memo said.
“We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment,” the memo read. “The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%.
As allegedly set forth in the “Bloomberg memo” referenced in The Washington Post article, the decision to help a specific “group” of ex-felons was seemingly intended to help those who would vote for Joe Biden.
While it is unclear whether such conduct is permissible, a January 21, 2016 advisory opinion written by Maria Matthews, Esq., Director of the Division of Elections in Florida, provides some context and guidance. In the advisory opinion, Matthews stated:
“Even the otherwise innocuous offering of an incentive simply to vote could run afoul of section 104.045 or section 104.061, or both, depending on the particular circumstances involved. That is, incentives could be offered to a voter in a way that would be designed to directly or indirectly cause the voter or a larger group of voters to vote in a particular manner.”
Matthews then listed several examples where a person offering incentives to voters simply to vote could possibly violate sections 104.045 and 104.061. One such example is where “incentives to vote might be offered to a group of people known to be registered under a particular party affiliation.” In such a case, Matthews states, “it would be possible that the intent of the person offering the incentives could run afoul of section 104.061(2), Florida Statutes, in a way that would constitute “vote-buying” or corruptly influencing voting.”
While it is unclear whether the decision to pay the court fines and fees of 32,000 Black and Latino ex-felons violated Florida (or federal) law, it should, and is, being investigated by Florida’s Attorney General and/or the FBI. The risk associated with inaction is simply too great and could and end up costing President Trump the State of Florida, which he must carry come November.
This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.
Mr. Hakim is a writer and an attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, American Thinker and other online publications.
