Ron DeSantis Touted the Arrest of 20 People for Illegally Voting. Some Say They Were Told They Were Eligible.
The messy rollout of a constitutional amendment restoring voting rights to felons is now creating more felony crimes.

Last Thursday, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis held a press conference announcing the arrest of 20 people for illegally voting, many of them for voting despite having a felony record for murder or sex offenses.
"They did not go through any process, they did not get their rights restored, and yet they went ahead and voted anyways," DeSantis said. "That is against the law, and now they're gonna pay the price for it."
The announcement was a debut of sorts for the state's new Office of Election Crimes and Security, created as part of a package of tighter voting laws passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature. However, multiple news outlets have reported that many of those arrested for illegally voting thought they were eligible or said they had been told they were eligible.
The Tampa Bay Times reported that Romona Oliver, one of the arrestees touted by DeSantis, was asked if she had a felony record when she filled out paperwork to register to vote at the county tax collector's office. But Oliver, who had recently completed a 20-year sentence second-degree murder, was never asked if her right to vote had been restored. County officials don't verify eligibility; they simply send the paperwork to the state.
Oliver voted for the first time in her life in the 2020 presidential election. "It was exciting for me because I felt like after all that time, I want to get out and try to do the right thing," she told the newspaper. "Give back to the community."
Instead, she is now facing a third-degree felony, which carries up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison.
Five of those arrested told the Tampa Bay Times that "they believed they were able to vote and had faced no issue registering."
Orlando outlet News 6 reported that three Orange County residents who were arrested for illegally voting all thought they were eligible. According to an arrest report for Jerry Foster, one of the men arrested for illegally voting, "Foster called the Orange County Sheriff's Office resident deputy assigned to sexual offenders and inquired about voting and the deputy reportedly told him that he could vote."
The confusion stems from Amendment 4, a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2018 to restore voting rights to those with felony records, except those convicted of murder or sex offenses. At the time, Florida was one of four states that imposed lifetime voting bans on felony offenders.
However, the implementation of Amendment 4 was bogged down in controversy. The amendment said that those with felony records would have their rights restored upon completion of "all terms" of their sentence, but it was unclear if this included court fines and fees. Republicans insisted that it did, while civil liberties groups and Democrats said that would amount to an illegal poll tax and bar many, if not most, felony offenders from getting their rights restored.
The Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill requiring payment of fines and fees to restore one's voting rights. A federal judge, ruling in a civil rights lawsuit challenging the new law, declared that parts of the law were unconstitutional, but that ruling was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
What became clear during the trial was that state officials, much less county officials, didn't have an easy way to check someone's eligibility against their criminal record or see how much they still owed in fines. That leaves the onus, and the risk of arrest, on the individual.
Florida State Sen. Jeff Brandes (R–St. Petersburg), who shepherded the bill implementing Amendment 4, tweeted last week that the Legislature never intended it to be used so harshly against those who accidentally voted.
As the author of the bill implementing amend 4 it was our intent that those ineligible would be granted some grace by the state if they registered without intent to commit voter fraud. Some of the individuals did check with SOEs and believed they could register. #Intentmatters https://t.co/3IXmSuIpSe
— Jeff Brandes (@JeffreyBrandes) August 19, 2022
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, a grassroots advocacy group that worked to pass Amendment 4, said in a press release that the Amendment "is very clear on who is eligible and who is not eligible to vote. When someone registers to vote, it is the responsibility of the state to determine an individual's eligibility prior to issuing a voter identification card."
"If Floridians can not rely on the government to verify their eligibility," the group asked, "who can they rely on?"
Such cases of harsh punishment for allegedly honest mistakes, or in some cases government mistakes, are not limited to Florida. Reason's Billy Binion wrote earlier this year about the case of Pamela Moses, a Tennessee woman who was sentenced to six years in prison for illegally registering to vote while on probation. Moses' probation officer had incorrectly signed off on paperwork stating that she had finished her probation. And there's the case of Crystal Mason, a Texas woman sentenced to five years in prison for voting while still on supervised release, a crime she says she was oblivious to.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What specifically do you have to sign when you register to vote? Does it spell out what qualifications you need to have? And do people read these things before registering?
Do people read anything they sign?
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu--23) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
If they were convicted of a felony, have them fill out a separate form
- were you convicted of murder or a sex crime and haven't been cleared or pardoned?
-Have you been convicted of any other felony and haven't finished your sentence?
(assuming those are the relevant criteria)
Everyone fills out the same form, which informs the registrant:
"If you have been convicted of a felony, or if a court has found you to be mentally incapacitated as to your right to vote, you cannot register until your right to vote is restored... It is a 3rd degree felony to submit false information. Maximum penalties are $5,000 and/or 5 years in prison."
Then, registrants must attest to the following: "I affirm that I am not a convicted felon, or if I am, my right to vote has been restored."
if that is the case, then there can be no excuse. Except for the one bove where some copper said everything was done when it was not. HE blew, it, and that should be taken into consideration before covicting this person.
Whew! For a minute I feared we wouldn't get a Florida Man Bad article today.
Yeah, that was a close one.
Ron DeSantis Touted the Arrest of 20 People for Illegally Voting. Some Say They Were Told They Were Eligible.
And?
Seriously, this article is just. fucking. retarded. Did DeSantis pass the law himself? No. Did he/the Executive arrest people for breaking the law? Yes. Did Republicans reform felons voting right unanimously? No. Were Democrats and the judiciary just as responsible for the flubbed rollout? Yes.
So, what's the proposed (libertarian) alternative? No felony voting reform? Unilateral Republican legislative activism? Anybody who wants to vote gets to (without reforming the voting laws)?
Just. fucking. retarded.
If they didn't have Trump and DeSantis what would they write about? The Democrats are definitely not doing anything incredibly shady and criminal right now, so there'd be nothing to cover.
Remember when Chris Rock it was impossible to make jokes about Obama because he's literally perfect?
DeSantis has presidential ambitions and took time out of his schedule to hold a meaningless press conference in service of placating the election fraud crowd and single out 20 illegal votes.
It’s 20 fucking people. Who gives a shit? Pretty embarrassing for him.
First, I live in Chicagoland, what number do you want to see?
Second, Governors in three states have declared federal emergencies over monkeypox, are we now saying Governors can't hold press conferences? Or is it just stupid when they hold them and don't ask for any money?
Some say....uh huh
So, voter fraud is something that totally never happens (a position Reason has taken previously). But, people just happened to tell these felons that they were eligible to vote when doing so was illegal, so we should let it slide. Do you possibly understand just how utterly absurd those two positions look when put together?
Odds it was someone from the Stacy Abrahm's group.
Or you can take the intelligent and reasonable position that voter fraud is very rare and when it occurs, is punished with undue severity.
As of now, all I hear is that arrests were made. AFAICT, these people are being treated better than your average trespasser.
It's not happening
It's happening but it's not what you think <-- shreek is here
It's happening and that's a good thing <-- shreek will be here after they are convicted
Fuck off, peasant.
Voter fraud s NOT as rare as you seem to think, AND it NEEDS to be seversley punished when it is discovered.
There are few politicians I trust any more than a convicted felon. Since they best the article can do is take the word of a bunch of felons at face value, the politician may be in the right.
Since they best the article can do is take the word of a bunch of felons at face value, the politician may be in the right.
It doesn't matter if the politicians are right or not, Retard Ciaramella doesn't seem to be offering any sort of real criticism, let alone libertarian/constructive criticism. It pretty much boils down to a naked, borderline-nonsense statement of "Here are some alleged facts that are Ron DeSantis' and the FL-GOP's fault."
That's the new Reason.com.
Every defendant learns how important it is to save every document, including receipts, that can clear your name.
These ex-cons surely knew to save a record of calls to lawyers, probation, and election officials. They didn't have records.
If it were me, I would have emailed a lawyer and kept a printed copy of the response saying “you can vote.”
That leaves the high probability that they’re lying now.
DeSantis is just lathering his disaffected, frightened, racist Republican rubes. Including the bigoted right-wingers who frequent this site.
Carry on, clingers. Just so far and so long as better Americans permit, though.
Hey remember that time when one of your child-raping cohorts got ventilated by a 17 year old boy after screaming SHOOT ME NIGGER! at the top of his lungs on video for hours?
Oh yeah God bless you too Rev.
20 people is proof that the election was stolen.
what would be?
Good question. Something actionable. Something that could actually sway the outcome. Something that could be used in court. I've got no dog in this fight.
So something like, say, $100,000 in Facebook ads purchased by Russia?
No. Unless you think voters are moronic putty that will be swayed so easily by advertising that the outcome of any election can be predicted by the money spent on Facebook.
Didn't sway you Jonah eh? But your smarter than everyone.
They only caught 20.
You can be certain there are lots more
Trump won Florida so DeSantis is obviously not saying the "election was stolen". He's saying a crime may have been committed so 20 people were arrested. I'm sure he held a press conference not to say how great he is (that's always possible as he is a politician), but more likely to tell people that are thinking about organizing election fraud that they will be found and prosecuted if they try. It's the same thing that mayors and police chiefs do to try to deter criminals from committing crimes. These current cases will be looked into and then let's see what happens. Stop the screeching and hand wringing. But you probably knew all this anyway and you just like to screech and play the outraged liberal.
Some Say They Were Told They Were Eligible.
That's what I would say.
And I’d say, “got receipts?”
and I"d say give me the list of eligibility requirements, which I'd read and determine by yes/no answers whether I really AM eligible to register to vote again. SImple.
I'd say every one of these KNEW whether then had paid ALL the fines, fees, etc, outstnding and resulting from their crime of record. The court discharge papers HAD to have detailed everything. Numbers are not that hard to read. Unless you snuck over the wall, but even then numbers (at least arabic ones) are simple.
County officials don't verify eligibility; they simply send the paperwork to the state.
Gee, I wonder if there is some system, some process in which eligibility could be determined at the time of voting.
Good point, but it may be too much for some state employees to accomplish.
the CORRECT time to determine eligibility is when one is registering to vote. Once registered, one may then vote.. UNLESS they've managed to commit a new felony since registering..
The voting registrar SHOULD have information ready to hand to help him determine whether ALL fines, fees, sentences, parole, probation, resitution, etc, have been fulfilled, as the new law REQUIRES.
Not sure how FL works but it appears APPLICATION is made and the officials then check, verify, etc before issuing the registration. As should be.
the guy who should be arrested is the director of Ron's TOP GUV television ad
And the democrat rioters were told they could burn loot and murder because some old white man owned slaves hundreds of years ago.
Isn't this one of the same arguments you dismissed out of hand when it was put forward by Trump's lawyers about his document collection?
I was told I could rob the bank i swear
Voting isn't "giving back to the community"; most voting is using the power of the state to steal from other people. She deserves to be locked up just for her stupid views.
“some say” they were invited into the Capitol by the Capitol Police
Are they distributing a list of J6 martyrs yet?
and some very clearly WERE invited in, I"ve seen the video of some of that.
C.J. might be the dumbest person at Reason. Quite the accomplishment.
I guess it could've been worse, they could've had Katherine "I don't vote on principle" Mangu-Ward or some other "Your vote doesn't count anyway." libertarian write the article.
Meanwhile in Florida, the GOP does whatever it can to thwart constitutional amendments ballot initiatives passed overwhelmingly in the past decade, including allowing felons who have served their time to vote (except certain sex offenders) and outlawing gerrymandering. The in-your-face governor - this guy needs more attention than Trump - is touting this arrest of 20 guys while ignoring a scandal involving GOP dark money campaigns to illegally win elections by funding 3rd party candidates who siphon votes from the democratic opponent. This happened in Orlando with a candidate with the same last name as the democrat and in Gainesville where a former black commissioner who was not serious about the race received a boat load of money to run. In both cases the GOP candidate barely won by these dark money siphoning of votes. This is being investigated and no doubt DeSantis won't be in front of a camera about it.
As to gerrymandering, DeSantis forced a heavily gerrymandered redistricting plan on the state for congress. It is predicted to change 4 - out of about 30 - seats from black to white representation and cut democratic representation from about 12 to 8 seats. This in a state DeSantis won by 30k votes and Obama won twice, and with approximately equal registered voters.
Florida used to be "Government in the Sunshine" and a national model of clean governance. Now it's a wholly owned subsidiary of GOP dirty tricks, corrupt governors like Scott - who's company paid the highest court fine in history - and would be dictators like the asshole DeSantis (Both of the latter won their elections by razor thin margins.).
Let's not forget that Florida's felon-disenfranchisement law, and overly aggressive attempts to enforce it, may well have been responsible for George W. Bush's win over Al Gore in 2000. (See https://felonvoting.procon.org/questions/did-floridas-felon-disenfranchisement-laws-cause-al-gore-to-lose-the-2000-presidential-elections/) So there was a certain importance attached to the recent reforms of that law which might not be obvious at first glance.
But also, perhaps legislators like Florida State Sen. Jeff Brandes will now be more careful to word things more carefully so that laws which are not "intended it to be used so harshly against those who accidentally" violate them cannot be so used. One can hope.
Good!
Voting is something people ought to take seriously. And the law is pretty clear.
When in doubt, don't vote.
Anyone who has served time for a felony gets fingerprinted.
So anyone who gets a state ID to show for voter registration can be tagged there.
Of course the state can't pin these on a voter applying for registration, without consent (i.e., applicant volunteers the info) because only free people have the right to vote.
The logical solution would be to ensure that the terms of the sentence include or require payment of all court costs and fees so that release from prison time served indeed makes one a free Man again.
People should be required to show Real ID for voting, and the Real ID should contain the information about citizenship/residency status, ability to vote, and voter registration. You should be required to register to vote in the location that issues your Real ID, and that should also define your residency for tax purposes.
That solves a lot of problems, and it's how other nations handle voting and taxation.
Real ID costs more than the free one that illegals can get to drive on my state. Why should I have to pay more than an illegal to get an ID and why should I have to pay anything to vote?
REAL ID is an unlawful intrusion uon MY privacy. The normal level state ID or driving license card is plenty.
Perhpas a slight change in the present system would be good. The normal form has the same tickbox "have you ever been convicted of a felony or gross misdemeanour crime". If no, move on down the page. If YES, return to the wicket and inform the agent there YES... at which point you will be tendered a second form which will ask for al the particulars.. date of conviction, jurisdiction and court, judge's name, case number, time served and in which facility, list of all extra fees, fines, costs, etc imposed as part of the sentence, conditioins and dates of parole/probation, supervising officer's name an agency, etc.
Now the county agent can make a simple phone call to that court and confirm ALL conditions and requirements have been met, and the individual CAN be registered. to vote.
If any questions or issues come up, the clerk can contact the applicant and learn more. Curt records and the case file should be comprehensive and definitive. Should not take more than ten minutes. This should be upon the registrar's shoulders to check. But applicant should be required to provide the pertinent information to make checkng simple and rapid.
If the court issued any written "terms and conditions" which they all do, listing every aspect and requirement of the entire "debt" to be paid by the convicted, then there is no excuse for anyone not knowing every little detail of what is required of them to be fulfilled prior to being completely released. And every convicted crininal KNOWS this, unless they do not speak english, in whcih case they still do, as gummit pays BIG BUX for translation services for such folks.
ALL terms of the burden placed upon the convicted are listed and made plain to the one convicted. There IS no excuse, and the text of the law clearly requires ALL conditions and obligtions imposed on the convicted one be fulfilled before they are "done".
Hey, the murderers and rapists said they didn't mean it. That it was all an accident. And since murderers and rapists are, of course, the finest people there are we can just trust that every thing they say is true.
Fuck you Reason, you always find some way to excuse the left for every attack on liberty.
Dear Reason.com:
Below find some constructive criticism. Hope this helps.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The announcement was a debut of sorts for the state's new Office of Election Crimes and Security, created as part of a package of tighter voting laws passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature. However, multiple news outlets have reported that many of those arrested for illegally voting thought they were eligible or said they had been told they were eligible.
REALITY:
These claims by the felons of being told they were eligible cannot be verified and are meaningless. The truth is that, even if they were so told, it's still their own responsibility, not someone else's, to fill out their voter registration forms with correct information.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The Tampa Bay Times reported that Romona Oliver, one of the arrestees touted by DeSantis, was asked if she had a felony record when she filled out paperwork to register to vote at the county tax collector's office. But Oliver, who had recently completed a 20-year sentence second-degree murder, was never asked if her right to vote had been restored. County officials don't verify eligibility; they simply send the paperwork to the state.
REALITY:
Who knows if Oliver's story is true, but we know with certainty that she WAS asked if her right to vote had been restored. The registration form itself requires registrants to provide that information, and no one can register to vote without answering that question. Why did the reporter not point that out?
It's true that county officials do not verify eligibility. That's not their job. Voter registration in Florida is conducted on the honor system. Always has been. Here's a sampling of the information that must be provided on the form that county officials do not verify:
-- Are you a U.S. citizen?
-- I affirm that I am not a convicted felon, or if I am, my right to vote has been restored.
-- I affirm that I have not been adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting or, if I have, my right to vote has been restored.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Oliver ... is now facing a third-degree felony, which carries up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison.
REALITY:
That should not surprise Oliver or any other registered voter. THE REGISTRATION FORM SAYS SO. Near the very top of the form, the following is printed: "If you have been convicted of a felony, or if a court has found you to be mentally incapacitated as to your right to vote, you cannot register until your right to vote is restored." Then, under a bold, all-caps heading printed in red ink that reads "CRIMINAL OFFENSE," the form contains the following: "It is a 3rd degree felony to submit false information. Maximum penalties are $5,000 and/or 5 years in prison."
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Five of those arrested told the Tampa Bay Times that "they believed they were able to vote and had faced no issue registering."
REALITY:
Of course they faced no issue registering because it's done on the honor system. And, it doesn't matter what they "believed." A felon who "believes" he or she is able to vote, without knowing for sure, is a taking a big gamble by registering, which is why the form goes to such lengths to inform people of that. These felons cannot plead ignorance since they signed a form containing all those warnings about CRIMINAL OFFENSE and the penalties. And, by signing the form, all registrants take an oath that includes: "All information provided in this application is true." Note that the oath does not indicate the registrant "believes" the information is true.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Orlando outlet News 6 reported that three Orange County residents who were arrested for illegally voting all thought they were eligible. According to an arrest report for Jerry Foster, one of the men arrested for illegally voting, "Foster called the Orange County Sheriff's Office resident deputy assigned to sexual offenders and inquired about voting and the deputy reportedly told him that he could vote."
REALITY:
Even if that claim is true (which it might not be), a sheriff's deputy is not the proper source for legal advice. A sheriff's deputy has no idea if any particular felon is eligible to vote, any more than Joe Blow on the street would know. Does Mr. Foster remember which deputy told him that? If so, did the deputy confirm Mr. Foster's claim? Why does the article not answer those questions?
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The confusion stems from Amendment 4, a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2018 to restore voting rights to those with felony records, except those convicted of murder or sex offenses. At the time, Florida was one of four states that imposed lifetime voting bans on felony offenders.
REALITY:
So much misinformation in that paragraph above. First, Amendment 4 (A4) does not simply restore voting rights to those with felony records who are not murderers or sex offenders. If there's confusion out there, a lot of it stems from news outlets publishing this type of misinformation. Under A4, in order for a felon to have voting rights restored, he or she cannot be convicted of murder or a sex offense AND must complete all terms of his or her sentence. Every felon has a "felony record" as soon as he or she is convicted, without having completed any terms of the sentence, and therefore does not qualify merely by having a felony record. The reporter talks about "all terms" later in the article, but why print this misleading statement ahead of time?
Secondly, Florida did not impose an absolute "lifetime voting ban" on felony offenders (aka "felons") prior to A4. Florida had a clemency process under which felons could have their voting rights restored, even before A4 was adopted, and still does. All felons are eligible for clemency, and those that receive clemency are not under a lifetime voting ban. Please stop publishing this type of misinformation. Accuracy is important.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
However, the implementation of Amendment 4 was bogged down in controversy. The amendment said that those with felony records would have their rights restored upon completion of "all terms" of their sentence, but it was unclear if this included court fines and fees. Republicans insisted that it did, while civil liberties groups and Democrats said that would amount to an illegal poll tax and bar many, if not most, felony offenders from getting their rights restored.
REALITY:
More misinformation. Republicans are not the only ones to insist that. To say the issue was unclear is to claim that the definition of "all" is unclear. Yes, words can sometimes be interpreted in different ways, but "all" never means "some." It never means "a few." It never means the ones we like but not the ones we don't like. "All" can never mean anything other than "all." That's not just my opinion or a Republican opinion. When A4 was being considered by the Fla Supreme Court for clarity, prior to going on the ballot, the attorney for the amendment's sponsor told the justices that "all terms" means "all matters included in the sentence... anything that a judge puts in a sentence," and he included fines, fees, and restitution when he said it, as long as they are specified in the sentence. That's what "all" means. There's nothing unclear about that. If language is unclear, the Supreme Court is supposed to keep it off the ballot. Certain parties tried to muddy the waters after A4 was adopted, but the words themselves are not unclear.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill requiring payment of fines and fees to restore one's voting rights. A federal judge, ruling in a civil rights lawsuit challenging the new law, declared that parts of the law were unconstitutional, but that ruling was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. What became clear during the trial was that state officials, much less county officials, didn't have an easy way to check someone's eligibility against their criminal record or see how much they still owed in fines. That leaves the onus, and the risk of arrest, on the individual.
REALITY:
That last part should have been obvious to everyone ahead of time. It was already obvious to anyone who actually thought about it. There was no good way for county or state officials to conduct such a check, and there still isn't. No one seemed to consider that fact, not even the Supreme Court when they reviewed A4 ahead of time, mostly because the sponsor's attorney told them everything would work smoothly and easily, which was a load of mularkey. If anyone had thought it through, they'd be forced to wonder: How is the Secretary of State, or anyone else, supposed to maintain an ongoing accounting of whether 700,000 (or more) felons residing all over the state have completed all terms of their sentences, which might or might not include prison time, parole, probation, and payment of fines, fees, and restitution, including felony sentences imposed by federal courts or other states' courts? That would involve a massive effort from voluminous state and local agencies of government, especially considering that some of those data are not tracked by anyone and that some governmental agencies might not be able or willing to cooperate. It would be nearly impossible prospectively, but it would be absolutely impossible for most preexisting cases.
And, by the way, the onus and risk of arrest for providing false information on a voter registration form, is, and always has been, on the individual, regardless of whether he or she is a felon.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Florida State Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg), who shepherded the bill implementing Amendment 4, tweeted last week that the Legislature never intended it to be used so harshly against those who accidentally voted.
REALITY:
Senator Brandes is only one of 160 state lawmakers. Unless he has polled the other 159 who were in office when the law passed, he doesn't know everyone else's intent on this point. Did the reporter ask him if he did that? And, does Brandes also believe lawmakers don't want manslaughter laws to be enforced when a person kills another person accidentally?
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, a grassroots advocacy group that worked to pass Amendment 4, said in a press release that the Amendment "is very clear on who is eligible and who is not eligible to vote. When someone registers to vote, it is the responsibility of the state to determine an individual's eligibility prior to issuing a voter identification card... If Floridians can not rely on the government to verify their eligibility, who can they rely on?"
REALITY:
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC) is simply wrong, and they obviously failed to consider the ruling issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which was cited earlier in the article. The court found: "A fundamental confusion in this litigation has been the notion that the Due Process Clause somehow makes Florida responsible not only for giving felons notice of the standards that determine their eligibility to vote but also for locating and providing felons with the facts necessary to determine whether they have completed their financial terms of sentence. The Due Process Clause imposes no such obligation. States are constitutionally entitled to set legitimate voter qualifications through laws of general application and to require voters to comply with those laws through their own efforts."
So, given that the FRRC's claim is demonstrably false, why didn't the reporter ask them if they wanted to reconsider their position in light of the 11th Circuit Court's ruling on this matter? Instead of doing that, the reporter merely regurgitated the FRRC's false claim in the article, along with the group's rhetorical question that amounts to a talking point, without providing any context for readers or pointing out that the claim is false according to the prevailing court ruling. That's journalistic malpractice.
THE END.
Hope you find this helpful.