HAND et al v. SCOTT et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number AFLNDC-3825751.), filed by Yraida Leonides Guanipa, Jospeh James Galasso, James Michael Hand, Jermaine Johnekins, Harold W. Gircsis, Jr, Christopher Michael Smith, William Bass. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Rick Scott, # 2 Summons for Pam Bondi, # 3 Summons for Jeff Atwater, # 4 Summons for Adam Putnam, # 5 Summons for Ken Detzner, # 6 Summons for Julie Jones, # 7 Summons for Melinda Coonrod, # 8 Summons for David Wyant, # 9 Summons for Richard Davison, # 10 Summons for Julia McCall) (BAKER, BRITTNIE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JAMES MICHAEL HAND,
)
JOSEPH JAMES GALASSO,
)
HAROLD W. GIRCSIS, JR.,
)
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SMITH, )
WILLIAM BASS, JERMAINE
)
JOHNEKINS, YRAIDA LEONIDES )
GUANIPA, on behalf of themselves )
and others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity )
as Governor of Florida and member )
of the State of Florida’s Executive
)
Clemency Board, PAM BONDI, in )
her official capacity as the Attorney )
General of Florida and member of the )
Executive Clemency Board, JEFF
)
ATWATER, in his official capacity )
as Chief Financial Officer and
)
member of the Executive Clemency )
Board, ADAM H. PUTNAM, in his )
official capacity as Commissioner of )
Agriculture and member of the
)
Executive Clemency Board, KEN
)
DETZNER, in his official capacity as )
Secretary of State of Florida, JULIE )
L. JONES, in her official capacity as )
Secretary of the Department of
)
Corrections, MELINDA N.
)
COONROD, in her official capacity )
as Commissioner and Chair of the
)
Florida Commission on Offender
)
Review, RICHARD D. DAVISON, )

CIVIL ACTION NO. ____________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Florida
Commission on Offender Review,
DAVID A. WYANT, in his official
Capacity as Commissioner of the
Florida Commission on Offender
Review, JULIA McCALL, in her
official capacity as Coordinator for
the Office of Executive Clemency of
the Florida Commission on Offender
Review,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
Plaintiffs James Michael Hand, Joseph James Galasso, Harold W. Gircsis, Jr.,
Christopher Michael Smith, William Bass, Jermaine Johnekins and Yraida Leonides
Guanipa (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief and allege
as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.

Florida is one of just four states which denies the right to vote to all

convicted former felons until they successfully petition for the restoration of their
civil rights. Kentucky, Iowa and Virginia are the only other states that consign the
voting rights of all convicted former felons (hereinafter “disenfranchised ex-felons”

2

or “ex-felons”) to the unrestrained discretion of public officials.1 This class action
challenges Florida’s disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement laws, which have
made the process of voting rights restoration unconstitutionally arbitrary.
2.

Disenfranchised ex-felons who have completed their sentences and

who seek to regain their voting rights in Florida must petition the Executive
Clemency Board (or “the Board”), which is comprised of the Governor of Florida,
the Attorney General, the Chief Financial Officer and the Commissioner of
Agriculture. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 1. The decision whether to grant or deny an
ex-felon’s restoration application rests with the unfettered discretion of these four
Board members. The application must be approved by a majority of the Board
members and the Governor must be included in the majority.
3.

While the Rules of Executive Clemency set forth a procedure for

applications to the Board, there are no laws, rules or regulations governing the
Board’s determinations, which remain wholly arbitrary. Rule 4 explicitly provides
that: “The Governor has the unfettered discretion to deny clemency at any time, for
any reason.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 4. Defendant Governor Rick Scott frequently

While Virginia’s current administration is restoring the voting rights of ex-felons
who have completed their sentences including parole and probation, the state laws
have not been changed. In some states, ex-felons convicted of certain felonies or
multiple felonies continue to be disenfranchised following the completion of their
sentences and must petition a court or state officials to regain their voting rights.
See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-905, 13-906; NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. §
213.155.
1

3

states that the Executive Clemency Board acts as a “court of mercy”2 and
underscores that the Board is not bound by any law in making its decisions.
Frequently the Board members state that they are looking to see if someone has
“turned [his or her] life around” and if the applicant has shown remorse. By way of
example, Governor Scott opened the March 3, 2016 hearing with the following
declaration of limitless discretion: “This is a board of clemency. Ok? There is no law
we’re following. The law has already been followed by the judges. So we get to
make our decisions based on our own beliefs.”3 With such vague, shifting standards
based on personal beliefs, applicants may be denied for any reason, including a
record of traffic violations, an admission to drinking alcohol or recreational drug
use, or no reason at all, just a state official’s whim, impression or gut instinct.
Applicants may also be granted for any reason, including the testimony of family
members, friends or pastors, an applicant’s demeanor or dress, or the expression of
political views which Board members favor, or no reason at all, just a state official’s
whim, impression or gut instinct.

2

The Statement of Policy that opens the Florida Rules of Executive Clemency states
that: “Clemency is an act of mercy that absolves the individual upon whom it is
bestowed from all or any part of the punishment that the law imposes.” Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 1.
3
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 3, 2016 at 00:04:25), available at
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/3316-executive-clemency-board-meeting-part1/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
4

4.

The risk of viewpoint discrimination is highest when a government

official’s discretion to authorize or reject First Amendment-protected activity is
entirely unconstrained by law. In this context, officials may deny restoration of the
right to vote on pretextual grounds while secretly basing their decision on the
applicant’s race, professions of faith (or lack thereof) or speculation as to the
applicant’s political affiliation or views. This is why – under longstanding Supreme
Court precedent – conditioning the enjoyment of a fundamental constitutional right
on the exercise of unfettered official discretion and arbitrary decision-making
imposes a prior restraint and violates the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. This arbitrary allocation of the franchise also violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
5.

Furthermore, no laws, rules or regulations set any time limits on the

Board to act on an ex-felon’s application for restoration of civil rights in Florida.
Board hearings are held only four times per year and only in Tallahassee. The Board
only hears an average of 52 restoration of civil rights cases per quarterly meeting.
Under the current set of rules adopted back in 2011, the Executive Clemency Board
has imposed an unjustifiable further roadblock to restoration of voting rights, forcing
ex-felons who have completed their sentences to wait an additional five or seven
years following the completion of their sentence before they can even apply for
restoration of voting rights. Upon information and belief, it is common for an
5

applicant to wait as many as ten years, if not more, without any update from the
Board before he or she is finally given a hearing date or notified the application was
denied or granted without a hearing. This delay is exacerbated by the existing
backlog of applications, which – as of March 1, 2017 – stood at 10,513 pending
applications.4 The lack of a definite time limit for the adjudication of an ex-felon’s
application for restoration of voting rights also violates the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The waiting period imposes a second sentence above
and beyond that imposed by a federal or state judge and a severe restriction on exfelons seeking to regain their voting rights, which is not narrowly tailored to any
legitimate government interest and therefore violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
6.

The Executive Clemency Board’s restoration process has always been

an unconstitutional obstacle to regaining the right to vote but this problem has
become particularly acute since Defendant Governor Scott took office in 2011 and
changed the rules to require lengthy waiting periods. The Governor has also
exercised his unbridled power over clemency procedures to reduce the number of
civil rights restoration applications which are processed annually and reject

4

On September 1, 2016, this figure was 10,588. The backlog has only decreased by
75 pending applications in six months, demonstrating that the current system has
both caused Florida’s disenfranchised population to grow to 1.68 million and is
utterly unsuited to addressing the ever-worsening problem.
6

tremendous numbers of ex-felon applicants.

The data shows that civil rights

restoration grants have dramatically declined since Governor Scott assumed office
in 2011: 1,428 (2001); 6,651 (2002); 14,836 (2003); 24,902 (2004); 11,638 (2005);
14,053 (2006); 38,971 (2007); 85,088 (2008); 25,347 (2009); 5,909 (2010); 78
(2011); 342 (2012); 605 (2013); 562 (2014); 428 (2015); and 473 (2016). As a result,
Florida now has an estimated 1.68 million disenfranchised ex-felons5 or 10.4 percent
of the state’s voting-age population—both the highest total and the highest rate in
the nation.6
7.

Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants’

unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
8.

Plaintiffs James Michael Hand, Joseph James Galasso, Harold W.

Gircsis, Jr., Christopher Michael Smith, William Bass and Jermaine Johnekins are
disenfranchised ex-felons who have applied for restoration of their civil rights by the
Board.

All but one of their applications have been denied; William Bass’s

application is pending in the backlog. Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa is not yet

5

Christopher Uggen, Ryan Larson and Sarah Shannon, 6 Million Lost Voters:
State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, The Sentencing Project
(2016) (Table 3), available at http://www.sentencingproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/6-Million-Lost-Voters.pdf#page=17 (last visited Mar. 7,
2017).
6
Id. (Figure 2).
7

eligible to apply for restoration of her civil rights because seven years have not
elapsed since she completed her sentence.
JURSIDICTION AND VENUE
9.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this case arises under the United States
Constitution and seeks equitable and other relief for the deprivation of constitutional
rights under color of state law.
10.

This Court has jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
11.

This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
12.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Rick Scott, the

Governor of Florida, Defendant Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Jeff Atwater, Chief
Financial Officer, and Adam Putnam, Commissioner of Agriculture, the members of
the Cabinet and the Executive Clemency Board, who are sued in their official
capacities. Defendant Board Members Governor Scott, Bondi, Atwater and Putnam
are elected state government officials who reside and work in Tallahassee, Florida.
13.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ken Detzner,

Secretary of State of Florida, who is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Detzner
is an appointed state official who resides and works in Tallahassee, Florida.
8

14.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Julie L. Jones, who

is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Corrections.
Defendant Jones is an appointed state official who resides and works in Tallahassee,
Florida.
15.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Melinda N.

Coonrod, who is sued in her official capacity as Commissioner and Chair of the
Florida Commission on Offender Review (formerly the Florida Parole and Probation
Commission), and Richard D. Davison and David A. Wyant, who are also both sued
in their official capacities as Commissioner of the Florida Commission on Offender
Review. Defendants Coonrod, Davison and Wyant are appointed state officials who
reside and work in Tallahassee, Florida.
16.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Julia McCall, who

is sued in her official capacity as Coordinator for the Office of Executive Clemency
of the Florida Commission on Offender Review. Defendant McCall is a state official
appointed by the Governor and Cabinet, who resides and works in Tallahassee,
Florida.
17.

Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Florida, under 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because Defendants Scott, Bondi, Atwater, Putnam, Detzner,
Jones, Coonrod, Davison, Wyant and McCall are state officials working in
Tallahassee, Florida. A substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims
9

occurred and will continue to occur in this district, making venue also proper under
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
PARTIES
18.

Plaintiff James Michael Hand is a United States citizen, 63 years old,

and a resident of Cutler Bay, Florida. Mr. Hand was convicted of at least one felony
in Florida state court and lost his right to vote under Florida state law. In 1986, Mr.
Hand was released from prison, and he completed his sentence in 2002. After he
completed his sentence, Mr. Hand applied to the Board for the restoration of his civil
rights. At an Executive Clemency Board hearing on December 16, 2011, his
application was denied. In rejecting his application, Governor Scott cited Mr.
Hand’s record of moving or traffic violations and said the following:
“Congratulations on turning your life around. Congratulations on your business. In
light of the significant issue—you know, traffic violations, and your inability to
comply with the law in that manner, I’m going to deny you restoration of civil rights
at this time.”7
19.

Plaintiff Joseph James Galasso is a United States citizen, 46 years old,

and a resident of Gainesville, Florida. Mr. Galasso was convicted of at least one
felony in Florida state court and lost his right to vote under Florida state law. Mr.

7

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 16, 2011 at 2:20:08-2:30:40), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
10

Galasso completed his sentence, including probation, in January 2004. In 2001, just
prior to his release from prison, he had applied to the Executive Clemency Board for
the restoration of his civil rights and had to wait twelve years before he was finally
scheduled for a hearing. The Office of Clemency Investigations did not begin its
investigation of Mr. Galasso’s case until roughly a decade after he applied. At a
Board hearing on March 20, 2013, his application was taken under advisement.
Defendant Governor Scott said: “So you’ve really turned your life around. You’ve
been out of prison eleven years and you’ve got all these traffic violations. . . . You’ve
turned your life around but if you—if you really don’t care about the law and you
have all these traffic violations it’s hard to say gosh you really believe in the law.”
Soon after the hearing, Mr. Galasso received a letter notifying him that his
application had been denied.8
20.

Plaintiff Harold W. Gircsis, Jr. is a United States citizen, 64 years old,

and a resident of Port Charlotte, Florida. Mr. Gircsis was convicted of at least one
felony in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and lost his right to
vote under Florida state law.

Mr. Gircsis completed his sentence, including

probation, on October 15, 2003. In 2006, he applied to the Executive Clemency

8

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 20, 2013) (audio only and not available
online).
11

Board for the restoration of his civil rights but was not given a hearing date until
2011. At a Board hearing on December 16, 2011, his application was denied.9
21.

Plaintiff Christopher Michael Smith is a United States citizen, 43 years

old, and a resident of Miami, Florida. Mr. Smith was convicted of at least one felony
in Florida state court and lost his right to vote under Florida state law. Mr. Smith
completed his sentence in 1997. In 2006, he applied to the Executive Clemency
Board for the restoration of his civil rights. In 2011, Mr. Smith refiled his application
because it had been pending for five years. The Office of Executive Clemency
contacted Mr. Smith to inform him that his application was still pending and that he
did not need to refile his petition. In the spring of 2016, the Board notified Mr. Smith
that he had been scheduled for a hearing in September. At a Board hearing on
September 21, 2016, his application was taken under advisement.10 About a week
later, Mr. Smith received a letter notifying him that his restoration application had
been denied.
22.

Plaintiff William Bass is a United States citizen, 64 years old, and a

resident of St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Bass was convicted of at least one felony in

9

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 16, 2011 at 1:25:01-1:26:03),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
10
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (September 21, 2016 at 4:23:034:29:37), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92116-executiveclemency-board-meeting-part-2/ (last visited Mar. 10, 2017).
12

Florida state court and lost his right to vote under Florida state law. Mr. Bass
completed his sentence in 2008. In either 2011 or 2012, he applied to the Executive
Clemency Board for the restoration of his civil rights. Mr. Bass subsequently
contacted the Office of Executive Clemency, and they informed him that he had to
wait five to seven years after completing his sentence before he could apply for
restoration. Prior to the 2016 general election, Mr. Bass re-filed his application,
which remains pending in the backlog of applications before the Executive
Clemency Board. Mr. Bass recently received a letter from the Office of Executive
Clemency dated January 20, 2017, notifying him that the Executive Clemency Board
did not approve him for restoration of civil rights without a hearing. The letter
advised him that his case had been referred to the Florida Commission on Offender
Review for a full investigation and ultimately a hearing. Mr. Bass was informed that
he could also choose to withdraw his application and a “Notice of Withdrawal of
Clemency Application” form was enclosed with the letter. Mr. Bass will not
withdraw his restoration of civil rights application.
23.

Plaintiff Jermaine Johnekins is a United States citizen, 44 years old, and

a resident of Pembroke Pines, Florida. Mr. Johnekins was convicted of at least one
felony in Florida state court and lost his right to vote under Florida state law. Mr.
Johnekins was sentenced to a work-release program for nine and a half months,
which he completed in 1998. In early 2012, he applied to the Executive Clemency
13

Board for the restoration of his civil rights. At a Board hearing on March 22, 2012,
his application was denied.11
24.

Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa is a United States citizen, 55 years

old, and a resident of Miami, Florida. In 1996, Ms. Guanipa was convicted of at
least one felony in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She
was released from prison in June 2007 and completed probation in June 2012. Under
the Executive Clemency Board’s current rules, Ms. Guanipa is barred from applying
for a restoration of her civil rights until June 2019, seven years after the completion
of her full sentence.
25.

Plaintiffs want to register and vote in future primary and general

elections in the State of Florida for candidates of their choice and ballot initiatives,
and to support and associate with political parties in order to advance the parties’
goals.
26.

Defendant Rick Scott is the Governor of Florida and is sued in his

official capacity. The Florida Constitution vests the Governor with the authority to
restore civil rights. FLA. CONST. art. IV § 8(a). The Governor heads the Executive
Clemency Board, which is tasked with promulgating the Rules of Executive
Clemency and making final determinations on all restoration of civil rights cases.

11

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 22, 2012 at 2:08:332:13:44), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executiveclemency-board-meeting/ (last visited Mar. 20, 2017).
14

FLA. STAT. ANN. § 940.03. The Governor is empowered to restore civil rights by
executive order. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 940.01(1). The Governor may join with two
other Board members to grant an application for restoration of civil rights or deny
the application outright because he or she must be in the majority for any grant. Id.;
FLA. STAT. ANN. § 940.03; Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 4.
27.

Defendants Pam Bondi, Jeff Atwater and Adam Putnam, the remaining

members of the Cabinet and the Executive Clemency Board, are sued in their official
capacities. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 1. As members of the Board, they have the
power to grant or deny an application for restoration of civil rights by either
concurring in the Governor’s motion to grant or withholding their support. Fla. R.
Exec. Clemency 4.
28.

Defendant Ken Detzner is the Secretary of State of Florida and is sued

in his official capacity. As Secretary of State, Defendant Detzner is Florida’s chief
elections officer and administers Florida’s election laws. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.012.
29.

Defendant Julie L. Jones is the Secretary of the Department of

Corrections and is sued in her official capacity. The Department of Corrections has
“supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of the inmates, buildings,
grounds, property, and all other matters pertaining to the following facilities and
programs for the imprisonment, correction, and rehabilitation of adult offenders: (a)
Department of Corrections adult correctional institutions; (b) Department of
15

Corrections youthful offender institutions; (c) Department of Corrections Mental
Health Treatment Facility; (d) Department of Corrections Probation and Restitution
Center; (e) Department of Corrections community correctional centers; and (f)
Department of Corrections vocational centers.” FLA. STAT. ANN. § 945.025(1). The
Department of Corrections is charged with “inform[ing] and educat[ing] inmates and
offenders on community supervision about the restoration of civil rights.” FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 940.061. Additionally, every month the Department of Corrections
must electronically transfer to the Florida Commission on Offender Review “a list
of the names of inmates who have been released from incarceration and offenders
who have been terminated from supervision who may be eligible for restoration of
civil rights.” Id.
30.

Defendant Melinda N. Coonrod is the Commissioner and Chair of the

Florida Commission on Offender Review (formerly the Florida Parole and Probation
Commission) and is sued in her official capacity. The Florida Commission on
Offender Review, a three-member quasi-judicial body, makes decisions on granting
and revoking parole, conditional medical release, control release, conditional release
and addiction recovery release. FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 947.002, 947.01.12 The

12

See also Florida Commission on Offender Review: 2015-2016 Annual Report, at
5-7, available at
https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201516.pdf (last
visited Mar. 9, 2017).
16

Commission on Offender Review also “[a]cts as the administrative and investigative
arm” of the Executive Clemency Board and, in this capacity, must report to the
Board on “the circumstances, the criminal records, and the social, physical, mental,
and psychiatric conditions and histories of persons under consideration by the board
for” any form of clemency. Id. at 7; FLA. STAT. ANN. § 947.13(1)(e). The
Commission’s Chair “shall establish, execute, and be held accountable for all
administrative policy decisions. The routine administrative decisions are the full
responsibility of the chair.” FLA. STAT. ANN. § 947.002(3).
31.

Defendants Richard D. Davison and David A. Wyant are the other two

Commissioners serving on the Florida Commission on Offender Review. They are
sued in their official capacities.
32.

Defendant Julia McCall is the Coordinator for the Office of Executive

Clemency and is sued in her official capacity. The Office of Executive Clemency
(“OEC”) is an office within the Florida Commission on Offender Review and reports
to the Executive Clemency Board.13 The OEC processes executive clemency
applications and prepares them for the Board’s consideration. In her capacity as
Coordinator for the OEC, Defendant McCall “is responsible for coordinating all

13

Florida Commission on Offender Review: 2015-2016 Annual Report, at 14,
available at
https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201516.pdf (last
visited Mar. 9, 2017).
17

clemency meetings, referring applications for investigation [by the Office of
Clemency Investigations14], and serves as the official custodian of all clemency
records.” Id. The OEC also prepares the executive orders and certificates granting
clemency and communicates with applicants and their counsel. Id.
BACKGROUND
A. History of Felon Disenfranchisement and Re-Enfranchisement
in Florida
33.

The disenfranchisement of individuals with felony convictions has a

long history in Florida. Florida adopted its first constitution in 1838, prior to its
admission to the union in 1845. The 1838 Constitution vested the general power to
exclude those “convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crime, or
misdemeanor” from the franchise in the General Assembly. FLA. CONST. art. VI, §§
4, 13 (1838). The disenfranchisement language was left unchanged until 1868 when
the Reconstruction Act of 1867 required Florida and ten other former Confederate

The Office of Clemency Investigations (“OCI”) is another office within the
Florida Commission of Offender Review. The OCI is “charged with investigating,
reviewing, evaluating, and reporting to the Clemency Board in all types of clemency
cases[.]” The staff conducts an investigation of every ex-felon applicant for
restoration of civil rights, reviews his or her criminal record, traffic record, family
situation, employment, any alcohol or drug abuse history, any unlawful voter
registration or voting activity and any military history, and produces a Confidential
Case Analysis, which the Board reviews and which is sent to the applicant. Florida
Commission on Offender Review: 2015-2016 Annual Report, at 15, available at
https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201516.pdf (last visited
Mar. 9, 2017).
14

18

states to amend their Constitutions to extend the right to vote to all men, regardless
of race. While the 1868 Constitution granted suffrage to all men over the age of 21,
regardless of race, color, nationality, or previous condition of servitude, it also
explicitly disenfranchised “any person convicted of [a] felony” for life “unless
restored to civil rights.” FLA. CONST. art. XIV, §§ 2, 4 (1868). This language
remained in the Constitution for the next century and was amended in 1968 to state
that “[n]o person convicted of a felony . . . shall be qualified to vote or hold office
until restoration of civil rights,” which remains the law to this day. FLA. CONST. art.
VI, § 4 (1968). The felon disenfranchisement statute accordingly disqualifies “[a]
person who has been convicted of any felony by any court of record and who has
not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law.” FLA. STAT. ANN. §
97.041(2)(b).
34.

The 1868 Constitution had also provided that pardons could be granted

by a board comprised of “The Governor, Justices of the Supreme Court, and
Attorney General, or a major part of them, of whom the Governor shall be one.”
FLA. CONST. art. V, § 12 (1868). FLA. CONST. art. XIV, § 2 (1868) “allowed those
who had been ‘restored to civil rights’ to vote, but did not indicate how this
restoration might happen.”15 Since 1968, the Constitution has clearly vested the

15

PIPPA HOLLOWAY, LIVING IN INFAMY: FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT
HISTORY OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP 106 (2014).
19

AND THE

Governor of Florida with the power to restore an individual’s civil rights. Article
IV, Section 8(a) of the Constitution provides:
Except in cases of treason and in cases where impeachment results in
conviction, the governor may, by executive order filed with the
custodian of state records, suspend collection of fines and forfeitures,
grant reprieves not exceeding sixty days and, with the approval of two
members of the cabinet, grant full or conditional pardons, restore civil
rights, commute punishment, and remit fines and forfeitures for
offenses.16
FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1), which was first enacted in 1974, conditions the
restoration of civil rights on a full pardon, a conditional pardon, or a grant of
restoration pursuant to the Governor’s Article IV, Section 8 clemency powers.
35.

Under Governor Bush’s administration from 1999 to 2007, there were

no waiting periods for ex-felons before they could apply for restoration of their civil
rights. Instead, to be eligible for restoration of civil rights, the individual must have
completed all sentences and all conditions of supervision must have expired or been
completed. Individuals were eligible for restoration of civil rights without a hearing
if they were convicted of what the Board deemed less serious felonies and had “[n]o
outstanding detainers or pending criminal charges, or terms of supervised release”

Even in conjunction with Article VI, Section 4 above, it is not clear that Florida’s
Constitution gives the Governor the exclusive authority to restore civil rights, i.e.
that the Legislature could not pass legislation restoring ex-felons’ civil rights
automatically upon sentence completion. Indeed, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041 tellingly
articulates the felon disqualification as follows: “A person who has been convicted
of any felony by any court of record and who has not had his or her right to vote
restored pursuant to law.” (Emphasis added).
16

20

and no outstanding victim restitution. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9 (2000-2006). An
application was not required of such ex-felons unless they had been convicted in a
court other than a Florida state court. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 6, 9 (2000-2003). The
Department of Corrections released the names of ex-felons who had completed their
sentences including any parole, probation or supervised release to the Office of
Executive Clemency (“OEC”) for review. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.C (2000-2002).
The Coordinator of the OEC would prepare for the Board a preliminary review list
of ex-felons qualified for restoration without a hearing; individuals on that list would
be granted restoration of civil rights unless three or more Board members objected.
Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.B (2000-2002). In March of 2003, that threshold was
reduced to two or more Board members. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.B (2003). Up
until 2004, the rules stated: “If determined eligible [for restoration without a
hearing], an individual may, in most cases, receive a certificate evidencing
restoration of civil rights . . . within one calendar year.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9
(2000-2003). Those convicted of any of the listed felonies the Board deemed more
serious were required to submit an application and face the Board in a hearing. Fla.
R. Exec. Clemency 6, 9-11 (2000-2004). Additionally, from 2000 through 2002, the
Rules of Executive Clemency clearly stated that “[t]he failure to attend the hearing
will not be weighed against the applicant.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 11(B) (20002002). This provision was removed in 2003 and replaced with the statement that
21

“[a]pplicants are not required to appear at the hearing, but the Clemency Board
encourages applicants to attend.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 11(B) (2003).
36.

The revised rules promulgated in 2004 made additional categories of

ex-felons eligible for restoration of civil rights without a hearing under Rule 9.
Individuals who remained crime- and arrest-free for five years after completing all
sentences and conditions of supervision were eligible for restoration of civil rights
without a hearing so long as they did not have a conviction involving one of seven
enumerated categories of felonies. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A.5 (2004-2006). All
other ex-felons who had been convicted of a felony within one of the enumerated
offense categories in Rule 9.A.5 were eligible for restoration without a hearing if
they remained crime- and arrest-free for fifteen years after completing all sentences
and conditions of supervision. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A.6 (2004-2006). As with
prior versions of the rules, ex-felons eligible for restoration without a hearing on any
basis did not need to submit an application, unless they had been convicted in a court
other than a Florida state court. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 6, 9 (2004-2006). These
changes created new avenues for ex-felons to regain their civil rights without a
hearing, thus creating a way to restore the civil rights of more ex-felons.
37.

In 2007, Governor Crist and the Board further amended the Rules of

Executive Clemency to provide for an automatic path to restoration of civil rights
for individuals who have completed all sentences and conditions of supervision,
22

have no outstanding detainers or pending criminal charges, have paid all restitution,
and have neither been convicted of one of twenty-five listed felonies or felony
categories nor been declared a habitual violent felony offender, three-time violent
felony offender, violent career criminal, prison release reoffender, or sexual predator
under Florida law. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 5.E, 9 (2007-2010). For qualifying exfelons, “automatic” restoration meant the Board’s grant of civil rights was nondiscretionary: “A person shall have his or her civil rights . . . immediately restored
by automatic approval of the Clemency Board.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A (20072010) (emphasis added). The Board would receive information from the Department
of Corrections for all individuals who were eligible under Rule 9.A and
automatically issue executive orders restoring their civil rights. Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 9.B (2007-2010).
38.

Additionally, under the 2007 revised rules, discretionary grants of

restoration of civil rights without a hearing remained available under Rule 10 for any
ex-felon who met the same criteria as an ex-felon eligible for automatic restoration,
unless they had been convicted of a felony within one of eleven disqualifying felony
categories (narrowed down from the list in Rule 9) or declared a sexual predator.
Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 10.A (2007-2010). Those who remained crime- and arrestfree for fifteen years could still seek restoration without a hearing, regardless of their
offenses, but the availability of restoration without a hearing for those ex-felons who
23

remained crime- and arrest-free for five years was eliminated. Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 10.B (2007-2010). Contrary to the prior default rule granting restoration
unless Board members objected, the Governor plus two Board members would now
have to grant restoration affirmatively to anyone on the preliminary review list. Fla.
R. Exec. Clemency 10.C (2007-2010). Ex-felons eligible for automatic restoration
or restoration without a hearing on any basis did not need to submit an application,
unless they had been convicted in a court other a Florida state court. Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 6, 9, 10 (2007-2010). Finally, any individual not eligible for automatic
restoration under Rule 9 or restoration without a hearing under Rule 10 would be
compelled to submit an application for restoration with a hearing. Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 6, 9.B, 11 (2007-2010).
39.

At the first Board meeting of Governor Scott’s administration on March

9, 2011, the Board voted unanimously to revise the Rules of Executive Clemency,
establishing the arbitrary, time-consuming, and unreasonable restoration of civil
rights process which is challenged in this action. The newly promulgated rules
eliminated the automatic, non-discretionary restoration process for qualifying exfelons utilized by the previous administration and imposed strict waiting periods
before ex-felons could apply for restoration of their civil rights without or with a
hearing. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9-10. Those who committed what the Board deems
less serious offenses must wait five years after the completion of their sentences to
24

apply for restoration of civil rights, and those convicted of more serious felonies
must wait seven years. Coupled with the fact that the Board only meets four times
each year and only in Tallahassee, these waiting periods have caused the backlog of
pending applications to grow to over 10,000. Upon information and belief, many
applicants wait as many as ten years, if not more, for a hearing before the current
Board. The 2011 revised rules also removed the path to restoration of civil rights
without a hearing for those who have remained crime- and arrest-free for fifteen
years and eliminated a longstanding provision allowing the Governor and one other
Board member to waive the eligibility requirements in Rule 5, if at least two years
had passed since the applicant was convicted and no restitution was owed. Fla. R.
Exec. Clemency 8 (2000-2010). The Rules of Executive Clemency have not been
modified since March 9, 2011.
B. Current Process for Restoration of Civil Rights
40.

Under the current rules, an individual seeking the restoration of his or

her civil rights must be eligible for that type of clemency and must submit an
Application for Clemency. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 5, 6, 9, 10. This was a
significant change from prior versions of the rules, which allowed some ex-felons to
regain their civil rights without submitting an application. The same Application for
Clemency is used for all types of clemency: restoration of civil rights for a Florida,
federal, military or out-of-state conviction, restoration of alien status under Florida
25

law, remission of fine or forfeiture, specific authority to own, possess or use
firearms, full pardon, and pardon without firearm authority.17
41.

The Application for Clemency requires each applicant to provide basic

demographic information as well as information and supporting documents on each
felony conviction, including certified copies of the charging document, the
judgment, and the sentence, community control or probation order. Fla. R. Exec.
Clemency 6.B (2011). It can be quite time-consuming and costly for an applicant to
procure these documents. Prior to the adoption of the current rules, applications
seeking only the restoration of civil rights did not have to be accompanied by these
supporting documents. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 6.B (2000-2010).
i. Restoration of Civil Rights Without a Hearing
42.

An individual is eligible to apply for restoration of civil rights without

a hearing pursuant to Rule 9 “if the person has committed no crimes and has not
been arrested for a misdemeanor or felony for five (5) years from the date of
completion of all sentences and conditions of supervision imposed” and a number
of other requirements are met. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A.18 The completion of all

17

Florida Commission on Offender Review, Application for Clemency, available at
https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/clemency/ClemencyApplication.pdf (last visited
Mar. 9, 2017).
18
Even an arrest for a misdemeanor will reset the five-year clock or force the
applicant to wait a total of seven years and apply for restoration with a hearing under
Rule 10.
26

sentences and conditions of supervision includes imprisonment, parole, probation,
community control, control release, and conditional release. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency
9.A.1. The individual must have no outstanding detainers or pending criminal
charges and must have paid all restitution and other financial obligations. Fla. R.
Exec. Clemency 9.A.2, 9.A.3. Finally, the individual must not have been convicted
of any crime on a lengthy list of felonies, including but not limited to murder,
manslaughter, sexual batteries, drug trafficking and any other first- or second-degree
drug offense. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A.4. This list was significantly expanded
from prior versions of the rule governing discretionary restoration without a hearing.
43.

All applications submitted for restoration of civil rights without a

hearing are reviewed by the Florida Commission on Offender Review. Those
applications that meet the requirements of Rule 9.A are included in the preliminary
review list of individuals eligible for restoration without a hearing. If the Governor
and two other members of the Board approve an individual’s restoration of civil
rights within 60 days of the preliminary review list’s issuance, an executive order
granting clemency is issued. If the Governor does not approve an applicant on the
preliminary review list, the applicant is notified and may pursue restoration of civil
rights with a hearing pursuant to Rule 10. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.B.
ii. Restoration of Civil Rights With a Hearing

27

44.

An individual is eligible to apply for restoration of civil rights with a

hearing pursuant to Rule 10 so long as there are “no new felony convictions for a
period of seven (7) years or more after completion of all sentences imposed for the
applicant’s most recent felony conviction and all conditions of supervision for the
applicant’s most recent felony conviction have expired or been completed.” Fla. R.
Exec. Clemency 10.A. Like an applicant for restoration of civil rights without a
hearing, the individual must have paid all restitution and other financial obligations.
45.

Each application for restoration of civil rights with a hearing must

undergo an investigation by the Florida Commission on Offender Review which
results in a report recommending the applicant favorably or unfavorably to the
Board. Once all of these steps are completed, an applicant is placed on the agenda
for the next Board hearing, and the applicant is provided with a notice of appearance.
Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 11, 12. The Rules still provide that “[w]hile applicants are
not required to appear at the hearing, the Clemency Board encourages applicants to
attend.” Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 12.B.
46.

The Board still only holds four hearings per year. Fla. R. Exec.

Clemency 12.A. Over the last six years, the Board has heard an average of 52
applicants for restoration of civil rights per hearing. Each meeting is held in
Tallahassee which requires many applicants to take two or more days off from work
in order to attend and requires many to travel upwards of 500 miles to Tallahassee.
28

47.

At the meeting, each applicant is given five minutes to speak and

essentially plead with the Board for clemency and the restoration of his or her civil
rights. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 12.B. The Board may grant or deny the applicant,
continue the case until the next Board meeting, or take the application under
advisement to make a final determination privately by mailing a letter.

All

applicants who are denied must wait a minimum of two years before reapplying.
Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 14.
48.

The Florida Rules of Executive Clemency do not set forth any rules

governing the Board’s determinations. Rule 4 explicitly states that: “The Governor
has the unfettered discretion to deny clemency at any time, for any reason.” Fla. R.
Exec. Clemency 4.
C. Effect of the Current Restoration of Civil Rights Process in
Florida
49.

Since 2011, only 2,488 applications for restoration of civil rights have

been granted by Defendants Scott, Bondi, Atwater, and Putnam. This number is
dramatically lower than the number of applications granted during the previous two
administrations: 155,315 during Governor Crist’s administration (2007-2011) and
73,508 during Governor Bush’s administration (1999-2007). Restoration of civil
rights grants have declined steeply since Governor Scott assumed office in 2011:
1,428 (2001); 6,651 (2002); 14,836 (2003); 24,902 (2004); 11,638 (2005); 14,053
(2006); 38,971 (2007); 85,088 (2008); 25,347 (2009); 5,909 (2010); 78 (2011); 342
29

(2012); 605 (2013); 562 (2014); 428 (2015); and 473 (2016). This drop-off is largely
due to rule changes narrowing the number of ex-felons who are eligible for
discretionary restoration without a hearing and the elimination of automatic, nondiscretionary restoration, combined with the glacial pace at which the Board
processes applicants who require a hearing. The annual figures for restoration
without a hearing demonstrate the severe impact of Governor Scott’s rules: 1,351
(2001); 6,539 (2002); 14,729 (2003); 24,797 (2004); 11,513 (2005); 13,862 (2006);
38,907 (2007); 85,075 (2008); 25,336 (2009); 5,893 (2010); 52 (2011); 298 (2012);
537 (2013); 504 (2014); 349 (2015); and 373 (2016).
50.

Florida’s disenfranchised population is estimated at 1.68 million ex-

felons.19 10.4 percent of Florida’s voting-age population cannot vote due to a felony
conviction.20 Florida’s disenfranchised population accounts for more than a quarter
of all disenfranchised ex-felons in the country.21
51.

The restoration of the right to vote for the 1.68 million disenfranchised

former felons rests with the unfettered discretion of Governor Scott and the Board.
For the few ex-felons who endure the extensive delays to secure a hearing in front
of the Board, what follows is a thoroughly inconsistent and arbitrary process for
granting or denying applications for restoration of civil rights.

19

See supra note 5 (Table 3).
Id. (Figure 2).
21
Id.
20

30

52.

Not only is the standard-less process prone to arbitrary and

discriminatory treatment, but the Board actually does make decisions in a wholly
arbitrary manner. It grants and denies similarly situated applicants who have
speeding or traffic citations, have voted illegally, or have similar post-release drug
or alcohol use. These decisions turn on Governor Scott’s whim and the unregulated
judgments of the Board.
D. Unfettered Discretion and Arbitrary Treatment of Ex-Felon
Applicants for Restoration of Voting Rights
53.

Members of the Executive Clemency Board routinely emphasize that

the Board is “a court of mercy,”22 and its determinations are untethered to any laws,
rules, standards, criteria or constraints of any kind. The Board frequently refers to
vague, amorphous standards such as whether the applicant has “turned [his or her]
life around”23 or has shown remorse.24 At the December 7, 2016 Board hearing,
Defendant Governor Scott stated: “Clemency is . . . is—there’s no standard. We can

22

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 24, 2015 at 00:03:27), available at
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/62415-executive-clemency-board-meeting/ (last
visited Mar. 9, 2017).
23
Id. at 2:09:26; Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 22, 2012 at 3:10:20),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited March 8, 2017).
24
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 7, 2006) (transcript at 142);
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 25, 2015 at 3:07:25),
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32515-executive-clemency-board-meeting/ (last
visited Mar. 9, 2017).
31

do whatever we want. But it’s tied to what we said in the beginning, it’s tied to
remorse.”25 Governor Scott has also cited the applicant’s “attitude” as a relevant
criterion for his decisions.26 These ad hoc standards are both unascertainable and
fatal to uniform application.
54.

If disclosed, the Executive Clemency Board’s reasoning in granting or

denying applications is purely arbitrary and may often be pretextual. Similarly
situated individuals obtain diametrically opposite results based on the passing whims
of the Board members, since nothing regulates their decision-making. Typically, the
Board members probe applicants’ records for information relating to whether they
are leading reformed lives. They focus on drug and alcohol use, traffic violations
such as speeding or driving with a suspended license, illegal registration and voting,
employment status, family and other perceived indicia of living a moral life or
having “turned [one’s] life around,” according to the Board members’ beliefs.
55.

One of the most frequent reasons Governor Scott cites for rejecting an

application for restoration of civil rights is a record of traffic or moving violations.
In these cases, Governor Scott usually states that speeding tickets, driving with a

25

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 7, 2016 at 2:02:00-2:02:07),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12716-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
26
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 25, 2015 at 3:25-3:32),
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32515-executive-clemency-board-meeting/ (last
visited Mar. 9, 2017).
32

suspended license or other traffic violations are indicative of an unwillingness to
abide by the law. That these are minor infractions, not felonies, and that the
constitutionally-protected right to vote hangs in the balance does not deter Governor
Scott and the other Board members from denying an application on this basis. For
instance, at a minimum, the following voting rights restoration applicants have been
denied due to their driving records: Eric Rodriguez-Schack (June 15, 2000);27 James
Lee Miller (March 2, 2006);28 Plaintiff James Michael Hand (December 16, 2011);29
Dennis Ortega Miller (March 22, 2012);30 Rex L. Carver (September 20, 2012);31
and Plaintiff Joseph James Galasso (March 20, 2013).32 However, in haphazard and
arbitrary fashion, the Board will sometimes grant applications, notwithstanding
equally lengthy records for the same moving violations. For example, the following
applicants were granted despite having a substantial or lengthy record of moving
violations, including speeding tickets: Mark Carston Addison (September 21,

27

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 15, 2000) (transcript at 85-91).
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 2, 2006) (transcript at 263-65).
29
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 16, 2011 at 2:20:08-2:30:40), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
30
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 22, 2012 at 2:45:18-2:55:40), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
31
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 20, 2012 at 2:17:10-2:21:40), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92012-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
32
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 20, 2013) (audio only and not available
online).
28

33

2011);33 Tameka S. Jordan (March 22, 2012);34 Charles Douglas (December 13,
2012);35 Gaston Mirabal (December 13, 2012);36 Jeremy Lewis (September 25,
2013);37 Gregory Louis Hansen (December 12, 2013);38 Anthony Edward Manso
(December 12, 2013, despite “so many traffic tickets”);39 Richard Allen Slaughter
III (March 19, 2014);40 Nelson Thomas Cruz (June 18, 2014);41 Ronald Eugene
Thompson (June 18, 2014);42 Rene De Moya (December 10, 2014);43 Michael Anson

33

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 21, 2011 at 1:51:04-2:01:23), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92111-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017)
34
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 22, 2012 at 1:14:12-1:20:28), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
35
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 13, 2012 at 1:22:00-1:26:30), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121312-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
36
Id. at 2:46:23-2:53:13.
37
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 25, 2013 at 2:35:49-2:38:14), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92513-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
38
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 12, 2013 at 2:18:54-2:20:05), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121213-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
39
Id. at 2:21:14-2:22:40.
40
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 19, 2014 at 3:09:20-3:12:16), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/031914-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
41
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 18, 2014 at 2:13:05-2:15:45), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/61814-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
42
Id. at 2:48:14-2:49:39.
43
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 10, 2014 at 3:19:30-3:23:05), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121014-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
34

Smith (December 9, 2015);44 and Elizabeth Gonzalez (December 9, 2015).45 The
reasons for this disparate treatment are elusive.
56.

On occasion, the Board randomly imposes conditions on the restoration

of civil rights to individuals with moving violations. The Board granted Tim Jones’s
restoration application at the March 2, 2006 hearing, despite a “long list” of traffic
violations, but delayed the restoration of his right to vote until he completed a year
without a new moving violation.46 In June 24, 2015, Edwin Scheer, who had “the
worst” traffic record the Board had seen, was also given a conditional grant but the
probationary period was set at two years.47 Governor Scott and the other Board
members never explain why these individuals are more worthy of restoration or why
their lengthy list of traffic violations does not militate in favor of a denial until they
no longer violate any traffic laws. On information and belief, conditional grants
appear to be used only for applicants with records of moving violations. The Board
acts in a wholly arbitrary fashion with uncontrolled, standard-less discretion to
approve some applicants and deny others, even if these decisions cannot be

44

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 9, 2015 at 1:29:57-1:41:26), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12915-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-2/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
45
Id. at 00:19:13-00:21:13.
46
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 2, 2006) (transcript at 271-75).
47
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 24, 2015 at 1:08:59-2:12:31), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/62415-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
35

reconciled in any logical fashion to ensure any degree of horizontal equity across
cases.
57.

Some ex-felon restoration applicants are denied for drug use

subsequent to the completion of their sentences. Others are granted, notwithstanding
a record of post-sentence drug use. The Executive Clemency Board arbitrarily
denies restoration applicants on the basis of subsequent drug use after the completion
of the applicant’s sentence, regardless of whether the charges resulted in a
conviction.

Governor Scott and the other Board members routinely question

applicants over their past and present drug use or lack thereof, even if drugs played
no role in their criminal records. They especially probe the applicant’s drug use if
he or she was convicted of a drug trafficking offense or if drug use played a role in
the offense. These interrogations reveal how vulnerable the clemency process is to
discrimination, including viewpoint discrimination.
58.

Examples of arbitrary determinations abound when the Board is

confronted with a record of subsequent drug use. At the December 9, 2015 Board
hearing, Michael Lee Hazelwood’s application was denied after he admitted that he
occasionally smokes marijuana because it helps him sleep,48 and Paul Antoine’s
application was denied at the March 3, 2016 hearing because of a 2008 cocaine

48

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 9, 2015 at 1:06:22-1:09:16), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12915-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-2/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
36

possession charge, on which prosecutors took no action.49 At the December 16, 2011
Board hearing, Brandon Garth Bloch was denied in large part because of marijuana
possession in 2010 and post-sentence drug use.50 Additionally, some applicants are
even denied for drug use which precedes their sentences. For example, after his
hearing on December 9, 2015, Kevin Michael Grenier was denied restoration of his
civil rights because he had failed a drug test prior to his incarceration over 15 years
before his hearing, and because Board members believed that he had not finished a
court-ordered drug treatment program when he was 16 years old.51 However, at the
September 21, 2016 Board hearing, Roger Simon admitted to continued marijuana
use following his completed sentence for drug trafficking52 and, at the December
2016 hearing, Melissa Beth Ann-Miller admitted that she smoked marijuana as
recently as 2012.53 Despite these admissions of continued drug use, both Mr.

49

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 3, 2016 at 00:42:06-00:45:23),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/3316-executive-clemency-boardmeeting-part-3/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
50
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 16, 2011 at 1:50:26-2:07:47), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
51
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 9, 2015 at 1:00:49-1:06:04), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12915-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-2/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
52
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 21, 2016 at 4:05:15-4:11:05), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92116-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-2/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
53
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 7, 2016 at 2:07:01-2:10:36), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12716-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
37

Simon’s and Ms. Ann-Miller’s applications for restoration of civil rights were
nevertheless granted. Similarly, at the September 20, 2012 hearing, Brian Ohle’s
voting rights were restored notwithstanding the fact that he had used drugs in 2007
following his conviction for a crime committed while intoxicated.54 At the March
19, 2014 hearing, it was noted that Danny Cuesta, who had previously been
convicted of a federal drug offense, was re-arrested in 2001 for possession of cocaine
at a nightclub.55 Despite this fact, the Board restored Mr. Cuesta’s civil rights.
Governor Scott will also arbitrarily ask certain applicants whether they still use drugs
and then skip this question for others. It is impossible to reconcile all of these cases
other than by reference to the passing whims of the Board members and the
undisclosed reasons for rejecting particular applicants.

An applicant’s race,

ethnicity, religion, failure to identify with any religion, dress, manner of speech, as
well as a guess as to the applicant’s political inclinations and views, might all play a
role in these seemingly random denials. A system of absolute discretion in licensing
is a license to discriminate.

54

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 20, 2012 at 1:49:48-1:56:38), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92012-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
55
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 19, 2014 at 2:11:37-1:13:59), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/031914-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
38

59.

Alcohol use is another frequent focus of the Board members’

interrogations. The Executive Clemency Board arbitrarily denies applicants for
restoration of civil rights on the basis of subsequent alcohol use after the completion
of the sentence. Restoration applicants routinely face questioning by Governor Scott
and the other Board members over their use of alcohol, even if alcohol played no
role in their criminal record but especially if they were convicted of DUI
manslaughter or any other offense in which intoxication played a substantial role.
For some applicants who were previously convicted of DUI manslaughter, Governor
Scott has zero tolerance for even infrequent, responsible drinking at social occasions
like weddings. At the June 2, 2011, December 13, 2012 and September 25, 2013
hearings, the Board denied Ronald Kessler,56 Brent Walter Rouse57 and Robert Allen
Parsons’58 applications, respectively, citing their continued drinking following
sentences for DUI manslaughter, even if the applicants represented that their
drinking was rare and responsible. For example, Governor Scott told Mr. Rouse that
if he had his criminal background, he would never drink again: “[U]ntil you stop

56

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 2, 2011 at 1:39:41-1:46:22), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/621111-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
57
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 13, 2012 at 3:24:55-3:35:30), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121312-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
58
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 25, 2013 at 4:16:34-4:21:42), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92513-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
39

drinking I would never ever—if I was in an accident and somebody died I would
never touch alcohol again.”59
60.

At other times, Governor Scott questions applicants who were

intoxicated at the time of their offenses and, after confirming that their present
drinking is minimal, occasional and/or responsible, moves to grant the application.
For example, at the June 2, 2011 Board hearing, James Labossiere’s restoration
application was granted despite stating that he still drinks following his conviction
for a crime he committed while intoxicated.60 At the March 22, 2012 hearing, the
Board restored Gerald Bryan Kelly’s voting rights even though he informed
Governor Scott that he drinks on occasion after having served time for a DUI
manslaughter conviction.61

At the September 20, 2012 hearing, Brian Ohle’s

application was granted even though he admitted to both alcohol and drug use after
his conviction for his crime and as recently as five years prior to his hearing.62 At

59

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 13, 2012 at 3:35:10), available at
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121312-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
60
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 2, 2011 at 2:44:17-3:00:10), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/621111-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
61
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 22, 2012 at 2:20:56-2:33:07), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
62
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Sept. 20, 2012 at 1:49:48-1:56:38), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92012-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
40

the June 26, 2013 hearing, another DUI manslaughter ex-felon Ronald Burgess
Kilpatrick’s application was granted, even though he drinks on occasion.63 Finally,
at the December 2016 hearing, Jason Lehlbeck, who was convicted of DUI reckless
driving, was re-enfranchised despite his admission that he drinks about four to six
drinks per week.64 Governor Scott’s zero tolerance policy for drinking by those
convicted of DUI crimes is randomly applied. It may be just another pretextual
reason and it once again underscores the erratic, arbitrary nature of the Board’s
decision-making.
61.

The Executive Clemency Board has been similarly inconsistent in

handling applicants who have unlawfully registered and voted, even though in
almost all cases the applicant represents that they did not do so knowingly. In 2011,
Governor Scott rejected at least five different applicants because they had unlawfully
registered and voted as ex-felons, even when these individuals pleaded that they did
not do so knowingly and that they were given misinformation by local and state
officials. They include: Dorothy Tabb Bucknor (February 24, 2011);65 Leon Gillis

63

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 26, 2013 at 2:19:19-2:27:35), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/62613-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
64
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 7, 2016 at 2:48:08-2:53:55), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12716-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
65
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Feb. 24, 2011 at 1:50:32-1:56:00), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/22411-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
41

III (June 2, 2011);66 Tiffany Paramore (December 16, 2011);67 Donald Charles
Green (December 16, 2011);68 and Elston Roberto Joyner (December 16, 2011).69
For Ms. Paramore, Governor Scott said he would be more comfortable when she reapplied in two years, begging the question why the Board would excuse her illegal
voting in two years, if it was unprepared to do so at the 2011 hearing. Following
statements by Defendants CFO Atwater and Commissioner Putnam criticizing the
Department of Corrections and the County Supervisors of Elections for their failure
to educate ex-felons on their disenfranchisement, it appears Governor Scott’s
Executive Clemency Board has not denied anyone solely for illegal voter registration
and/or voting. However, upon information and belief, the Board did not seek to
revisit and reverse the denials of those applicants rejected in 2011 for illegal voting.
For those applicants, their uncorrected denials remain irreconcilable and arbitrary.
62.

Since the fate of every applicant’s right to vote rests in the

unconstrained discretion of four governmental officials, the clemency process is
vulnerable to viewpoint discrimination including discrimination on the basis of

66

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 2, 2011 at 2:09:06-2:16:49), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/621111-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
67
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 16, 2011 at 3:10:13-3:19:59), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 8, 2017).
68
Id. at 2:11:23-2:19:40.
69
Id. at 2:46:39-2:51:43.
42

political party affiliation.

There are no rules prohibiting such discriminatory

treatment and no way to police the process for such discrimination because the
Executive Clemency Board members do not always disclose their reasons for
granting or denying an application. The Board can try to infer an applicant’s political
leanings based on his or her statements, residence address, race or ethnicity and even
perhaps information outside the case file presented by the Office of Clemency
Investigations, and then act on that ulterior basis. Given these circumstances, it is
unsurprising that certain applicants and their supporting witnesses make partisan
appeals to the Governor and other Board members.
63.

Applicants and witnesses on their behalf signal political leanings and

policy preferences, sometimes quite explicitly. For instance, a 25-year veteran of
law enforcement testified on behalf of Patrick Durden at the March 3, 2016 hearing,
stating that Mr. Durden should be able “to vote, to be a part of the process—to be a
part of the political process, whether it’s seeking office or to vote or to serve on a
jury, this is the type of person that we want out there doing . . . Beyond his
conservative views which are in all of our favor. . . .”70 Mr. Durden’s civil rights
were restored. Some applicants have sought to curry favor by identifying themselves
with the current Governor’s political party in subtle or more overt ways. These

70

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Mar. 3, 2016 at 00:58:32-1:08:30), available
at
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/3316-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-3/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
43

statements may well make the difference or give board members a reason to grant
an application, even though similarly situated applicants have been denied. A
system of unregulated discretion to license ex-felons to vote allows current and
future Board members of any political party to use the clemency power for partisan
ends. Such a system is highly vulnerable to viewpoint discrimination, which can be
easily camouflaged by a variety of stated, pretextual reasons for denying or granting
particular applicants. At the December 12, 2013 hearing, applicant Stephen A.
Warner was challenged on his recent illegal voting in 2010, and he responded by
saying he had voted for Governor Scott: “I voted for you.” Notwithstanding the
illegal voting on his record and the fact that other applicants had been denied on this
basis in 2011, the Board proceeded to grant Mr. Warner’s application for restoration
of civil rights.71 At the December 7, 2016 hearing, a Tallahassee police officer spoke
in favor of Robert Arnold Martin’s application and also sought to appeal to the
Board’s political preferences by stating “he is very conservative”—Mr. Martin’s
application was granted.72 And at the June 24, 2015 Board hearing, Scott Moore

71

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 12, 2013 at 3:47:38-3:50:19), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121213-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
72
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (Dec. 7, 2016 at 2:02:53-2:06:45), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12716-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
44

regained his right to vote after his wife testified to “his conservative principles.”73
By contrast, on September 20, 2012, Rex L. Carver, a military veteran, spoke
forcefully at his hearing on the injustice of felon disenfranchisement and the need to
protect the fundamental right to vote.74 Discounting the evidence that Mr. Carver
had indeed turned away from crime and was gainfully employed, Governor Scott
simply noted that the applicant had a record of traffic violations and stated: “If you
look at it from our standpoint, you look at it and you say, gosh this is an individual
that doesn’t worry about complying with the law.”75 Mr. Carver’s application was
denied. While these are examples from a Republican administration, in the future,
the Executive Clemency Board may be controlled by a Democratic or Libertarian
administration. From 1991 to 1998, Florida’s Governor was a Democrat. The
problem with these discretionary restoration decisions exists no matter who is in
office. This is precisely why politicians should not be given unfettered discretion to
decide who can vote.
64.

Further examples of the Board’s arbitrariness abound. Even though

Governor Scott’s Executive Clemency Board adopted five- and seven-year waiting

73

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 24, 2015 at 2:37:47-2:42:51), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/62415-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
74
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (September 20, 2012 at 2:17:10-2:21:40),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/92012-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
75
Id. at 2:21:08.
45

periods before ex-felons could even apply for restoration of civil rights, the
Governor nevertheless frequently denies applicants by noting simply and cryptically
that “more time needs to pass.”76

There is no consistency in these snap

determinations as to what constitutes an adequate amount of time between the
completion of a sentence and re-enfranchisement. At the December 16, 2011
hearing, the Board noted it had been less than ten years since Timothy John Faulker77
and Plaintiff Harold William Gircsis, Jr.78 were released. At the June 2, 2011
hearing, Governor Scott told Anna McFarland Wood that she needs to be crime-free
for a longer period of time than four years,79 and he told Stephen Edward Crain that
he would like to wait a little longer.80 Every year applicants are denied because the
Governor on whim determines that not enough time has passed since the sentence
was completed: Shawn Hughes (December 16, 2011);81 Michael L. Price (March 22,

76

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 9, 2015 at 1:23:40-1:23:45),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/12915-executive-clemency-boardmeeting-part-2/ (last visited Mar. 10, 2017).
77
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 16, 2011 at 1:24:01-1:24:58),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
78
Id. at 1:25:01-1:26:03.
79
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 2, 2011 at 4:05:18-4:16:35), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/621111-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
80
Id. at 2:02:04-2:08:23.
81
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 16, 2011 at 2:30:50-2:37:22),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121611-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
46

2012; “needs a little more time”);82 Luis Frederico Zouain (March 22, 2012; “it’s
only been eleven years”);83 Charles Williamson (December 13, 2012; “more time
ought to pass”);84 Virginia Atkins (June 26, 2013; “at this point I don’t feel
comfortable” despite her release from incarceration 10 years earlier);85 and Gene
Alan Rothstein (December 12, 2013; “more time needs to pass”).86 At the March
19, 2014 Board hearing, Governor Scott denied Vinicio Marmolejos’s application,
telling him that he had started heading in the right direction but that he would “like
more time to change your life and to show that you have changed.”87 Governor Scott
and the other Board members effectively substitute their own judgment for that of
the courts and the Florida Commission on Offender Review which decide how long
a criminal sentence or period of post-sentence supervision should be. The Board is

82

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 22, 2012 at 3:06:48-3:10:38),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/32212-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
83
Id. at 3:17:32-3:22:48.
84
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 13, 2012 at 3:46:23-3:51:31),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121312-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
85
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (June 26, 2013 at 2:52:17-2:56:02), available
at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/62613-executive-clemency-board-meeting/
(last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
86
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (December 12, 2013 at 3:21:53-3:26:52),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/121213-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
87
Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 19, 2014 at 2:52:51-2:55:20),
available at http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/031914-executive-clemency-boardmeeting/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
47

essentially given the unchecked power to indefinitely extend a sentence when it
comes to that ex-felon’s civil rights.
65.

Finally, the Executive Clemency Board also arbitrarily enforces its own

rules for processing and adjudicating clemency applications. As previously noted,
an applicant for restoration of civil rights is only eligible for restoration without a
hearing under Rule of Executive Clemency 9, if he or she has not been convicted of
a crime on a list of selected felonies. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 9.A.4. Otherwise, if
the applicant has been convicted of a felony on that list, he or she must be processed
under Rule of Executive Clemency 10, which requires a seven-year waiting period
and a hearing. Plaintiff William Bass has recently been denied for restoration
without a hearing and referred to the Office of Clemency Investigations for an
investigation and ultimately a hearing on his application. However, the requirements
of Rules 9 and 10 seem to be arbitrarily waived for certain applicants. Roderick
Kemp, who – on information and belief – had pled guilty to a second-degree felony
for possession with intent to deliver under FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 893.13(1)(a)(1),
893.03(2)(a) back in 1986 and who had applied for a pardon in 2015, suddenly
received a letter in the mail with an enclosed certificate announcing his civil rights
had been restored by executive order dated January 13, 2017. While Mr. Kemp has
waited much more than 5 or 7 years after completing his sentence, no hearing had
ever been scheduled for his case, and he was granted restoration without a hearing,
48

even though individuals convicted of “second degree felonies described in F.S.
Chapter 893” are ineligible for restoration without a hearing under Rule 9. The
Executive Clemency Board’s selective leniency and fast-tracking in this case
appears to be a direct result of the fact that Mr. Kemp’s case had garnered public
attention in the media and a recent documentary film produced by the Florida Center
for Investigative Reporting.

Of course, not all of the estimated 1.68 million

disenfranchised ex-felons in Florida will be able to garner media attention if that
compels the Board’s attention and a waiver of its own rules. Similarly, the Board
sometimes creates ad hoc rules. At the March 3, 2016 hearing, the Board denied
two applicants and imposed a 50-year waiting period before they could reapply,
effectively disenfranchising applicant David Bruce Easterling – who was 54 years
old at the time – for life.88
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFF CLASS (COUNTS 1-3)
66.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all those

similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiff Class is defined as:

88

Executive Clemency Board Hearing (March 3, 2016 at 1:08:37-1:16:23), available
at
http://thefloridachannel.org/videos/3316-executive-clemency-board-meetingpart-3/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2017).
49

Any current or future resident of the State of Florida who is a
United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, not disqualified
under the mental incapacitation provisions in FLA. CONST. art.
VI, § 4(a) and FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), who is
disenfranchised under Florida state law by reason of a prior
felony conviction under FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a) and FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(b) and who has completed his or her full
sentence for all felony convictions including any period of
parole, probation, supervised release and/or community control
and any other condition of supervision.
67.

It is estimated that 1.68 million Floridians are disenfranchised by reason

of a prior felony conviction.89 10,513 applicants for restoration of civil rights were
pending in the Executive Clemency Board’s backlog as of March 1, 2017. More exfelons complete their sentences including parole, probation and/or supervised release
every month. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, “[a]pproximately
39,727 (46.1%) offenders completed their sentences successfully” in FY 20142015.90

In FY 2015-2016, the Office of Executive Clemency received 6,462

clemency applications.91
68.

Questions of law are common to the class including: (1) whether

Florida state law governing felon disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement by

89

See supra note 5 (Table 3).
Florida Department of Corrections, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014-2015, at 54,
available at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1415/FDC_AR2014-15.pdf (last
visited Mar. 10, 2017).
91
Florida Commission on Offender Review: 2015-2016 Annual Report, at 8,
available
at
https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201516.pdf (last visited
Mar. 9, 2017).
90

50

way of the Executive Clemency Board’s restoration process violates the First
Amendment’s guarantee against prior restraints vesting government officials with
unfettered discretion to arbitrarily issue or deny licenses or permits to engage in
speech, association and/or any other activity or conduct protected by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) whether Florida state law
governing felon disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s prohibition on arbitrary allocation of the franchise; and (3) whether
the lack of any definite time limits in Florida state law governing felon
disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement for processing and making decisions on
applications for the restoration of voting rights violates the First Amendment
requirement that government officials authorized to license speech, association
and/or any other activity or conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution process applications and make their determinations within a
defined time period. The factual questions that are relevant to these three legal
questions reflecting Claims 1, 2 and 3 are all common to the class and will have
answers that are common to the class as a whole as well.
69.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. Since this is a facial challenge

to a set of unconstitutional laws and procedures, Plaintiffs all suffer the same
constitutional injury regardless of whether their applications for restoration of civil
rights have been denied, are still pending or have not yet been filed. All the Plaintiffs
51

and all members of the proposed Plaintiff Class are subjected to a set of felon
disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement laws and procedures which condition
the restoration of their First Amendment-protected right to vote on the unfettered
discretion of the Executive Clemency Board. As a consequence of this unlawful
prior restraint, all Plaintiffs’ voting rights are subject to the Board’s
unconstitutionally arbitrary decision-making or arbitrary allocation of the franchise;
and all Plaintiffs are subjected to a scheme which lacks definite time limits on the
licensing authority’s ultimate determinations.
70.

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all

members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a
whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. Plaintiffs,
like other members of the proposed Plaintiff Class, face a set of felon
disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement laws and procedures which condition
the restoration of their First Amendment-protected right to vote on the
unconstitutionally unfettered discretion of government officials, a voter-licensing
scheme which arbitrarily allocates the franchise and lacks any time limits on the
processing and adjudication of applications. They seek to have FLA. CONST. art. VI,
§ 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art.
IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of Executive Clemency
declared unlawful and permanently enjoined so that upon any ex-felon’s completion
52

of his or her full sentence including any period of parole, probation and/or supervised
release, he or she will be automatically and immediately restored to his or her voting
rights. This will obviate the need – pursuant to FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of Executive Clemency – to petition
the Executive Clemency Board for and secure the restoration of their voting rights
by a full pardon, conditional pardon or restoration of civil rights pursuant to Art. IV,
Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution.
71.

Proposed class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class.

Proposed class counsel is experienced with civil rights litigation, including voting
rights cases and class actions.
72.

Defendants have acted and will continue to act on grounds generally

applicable to the Plaintiff Class in requiring disenfranchised ex-felons – pursuant to
FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, §
4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of
Executive Clemency – to petition the Executive Clemency Board for and secure the
restoration of voting rights by a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of
civil rights granted pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution, before
they can register to vote and vote.

Final declaratory and injunctive relief is

appropriate with respect to the Plaintiff Class.
53

SUBCLASS A (COUNT 4)
73.

Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa seeks to represent a subclass

(Subclass A), which is a subset of the Plaintiff Class and defined as:
Any current or future resident of the State of Florida who is a
United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, not disqualified
under the mental incapacitation provisions in FLA. CONST. art.
VI, § 4(a) and FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), who is
disenfranchised under Florida state law by reason of a prior
felony conviction under FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a) and FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(b) and who has completed his or her full
sentence for all felony convictions including any period of
parole, probation, supervised release and/or community control
and any other condition of supervision, but who has not yet
waited 5 or 7 years – whichever is applicable to the individual –
since the completion of his or her sentence as required to apply
for restoration of civil rights under Florida Rules of Executive
Clemency 9 and 10, respectively.
74.

Again, it is estimated that 1.68 million Floridians are disenfranchised

by reason of a prior felony conviction.92 10,513 applicants for restoration of civil
rights were pending in the Executive Clemency Board’s backlog as of March 1,
2017. More ex-felons complete their sentences including parole, probation and/or
supervised release every month.

According to the Florida Department of

Corrections, “[a]pproximately 39,727 (46.1%) offenders completed their sentences
successfully” in FY 2014-2015.93 Accordingly, at a minimum, there are at least tens

92

See supra note 5 (Table 3).
Florida Department of Corrections, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014-2015, at 54,
available at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1415/FDC_AR2014-15.pdf (last
visited Mar. 10, 2017).
93

54

of thousands of Subclass A members who have not yet completed their 5- or 7-year
waiting periods following the completion of their sentences in accordance with
Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10.
75.

Questions of law and fact are common to Subclass A including: whether

the requirement under Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10 for ex-felons
to wait 5 or 7 years following sentence completion before applying for restoration
of voting rights, constitutes an undue burden on the right to vote not justified by the
state’s interests and therefore violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. These waiting periods are “severe restriction[s]” which are not
“narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick v.
Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992). Even if the Court were to find they constitute
“reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” they are not justified by “the State’s
important regulatory interests.” Id. The balancing of the restriction against the
state’s interests is a common question of fact and law for the entirety of Subclass A,
since the burden of the 5- and 7-year waiting periods after the completion of a
sentence does not vary from subclass member to subclass member. Each Subclass
A member suffers the same injury in being required effectively to serve an
unnecessary, de facto second sentence before applying for the restoration of his or
her voting rights.

55

76.

Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa’s claim is typical of Subclass A’s

members’ claims under Count Four. Subclass A members all suffer the same injury
of being forced to endure an unnecessary, de facto second sentence before applying
for restoration of their voting rights. Ms. Guanipa and all members of the proposed
Subclass A are subjected to the severe restriction of a pre-application 5- or 7-year
waiting period, which is not narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling
importance. Nor does it further an important regulatory interest.
77.

Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa will fairly and adequately represent

the interests of all members of the proposed subclass because she seeks relief on
behalf of Subclass A as a whole and has no interests antagonistic to other members
of the subclass. Ms. Guanipa, like other members of proposed Subclass A, faces an
unconstitutionally severe restriction in the waiting period requirements imposed by
the Executive Clemency Board in 2011. Ms. Guanipa and the members of proposed
Subclass A seek to have the 5- and 7-year waiting period requirements imposed in
Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10 declared unlawful and permanently
enjoined as undue burdens on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
78.

Proposed class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class.

Proposed class counsel is experienced with civil rights litigation, including voting
rights and First Amendment cases.
56

79.

Defendants have acted and will act on grounds generally applicable to

Subclass A in requiring disenfranchised ex-felons who have completed their full
sentences to wait 5 or 7 years, pursuant to Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9
and 10, respectively, before applying for the restoration of their voting rights. Final
declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate with respect to Subclass A.
CLAIMS
COUNT ONE
(All Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class)
(Unfettered Official Discretion and Arbitrary Treatment in Violation of First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
80.

The factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are

incorporated into Count One, as though fully set forth herein.
81.

Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of

the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
82.

The First Amendment provides that: “Congress shall make no law . . .

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S.
CONST. amend. I, § 1.
83.

The First Amendment protects the right to vote because voting is both

a form of speech or expressive conduct and a means of political association. Doe v.
Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 195-96 & n.1 (2010); id. at 224 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“We
have acknowledged the existence of a First Amendment interest in voting . . .”)
57

(citing Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)); California Democratic Party v.
Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S.
351, 354-57 (1997); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-43
(1995); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 437-39 (1992); Norman v. Reed, 502
U.S. 279, 288-90 (1992); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S.
208, 214-17 (1986); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193, 199
(1986); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787-89 (1983); Illinois State Bd. of
Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979); Storer v. Brown,
415 U.S. 724, 728-29 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-58 (1973);
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31 (1968). Because registration is a prerequisite
to and/or enables voting in primary and general elections, it too is protected by the
First Amendment. See Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377,
400 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[A] decision to contribute money to a
campaign is a matter of First Amendment concern—not because money is speech (it
is not); but because it enables speech.”) (emphasis in original).
84.

The First Amendment forbids vesting government officials with

unfettered discretion to issue or deny licenses or permits to engage in any First
Amendment-protected speech, expressive conduct, association or any other
protected activity or conduct. Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S.
123, 130-33 (1992) (“The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled
58

discretion in a government official.”); City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co.,
486 U.S. 750, 763-64 (1988) (“[A] law or policy permitting communication in a
certain manner for some but not for others raises the specter of content and viewpoint
censorship. This danger is at its zenith when the determination of who may speak
and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion of a government official.”);
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 153 (1969) (“[A
government] may not empower its licensing officials to roam essentially at will,
dispensing or withholding permission to speak, assemble, picket, or parade
according to their own opinions regarding the potential effect of the activity in
question on the ‘welfare,’ ‘decency,’ or ‘morals’ of the community.”); Cox v. State
of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554-58 (1965); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313,
322 (1958) (“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an
ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the
Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by
requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of
such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment
of those freedoms.”); Niemotko v. State of Md., 340 U.S. 268, 271-73 (1951)
(striking down prior restraint on use of parks, noting that hearing focused on “alleged
refusal to salute the flag, their views on the Bible, and other issues irrelevant to
unemcumbered [sic] use of the public parks” and that Mayor testified applicant’s
59

demeanor at hearing doomed application); Saia v. People of State of New York, 334
U.S. 558, 560-62 (1948) (striking down prior restraint scheme of “uncontrolled
discretion” to grant or deny permits for use of loud-speakers) (“Annoyance at ideas
can be cloaked in annoyance at sound.”).
85.

Similarly, the First Amendment requires that any time, place and

manner regulation not be arbitrary or arbitrarily administered. If decisions as to the
time, place and manner of voting are left to the whims of government officials, then
the regulation is invalid. “A government regulation that allows arbitrary application
is ‘inherently inconsistent with a valid time, place, and manner regulation because
such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular
point of view.’” Forsyth Cnty., 505 U.S. at 130-31 (quoting Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y
for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649 (1981)); Poulos v. State of New
Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 405-08 (1953). Florida’s felon disenfranchisement and
re-enfranchisement laws together operate as an invalid prior restraint, not a valid
time, place and manner regulation.
86.

Defendant-Members of the Executive Clemency Board are vested with

the authority to deny or grant applications for the restoration of civil rights but its
discretion in issuing licenses to vote is absolute.

The Board’s decisions are

unconstrained by any laws or rules and guided by only the vaguest and most

60

subjective of uncodified standards.

This scheme therefore constitutes an

unconstitutional prior restraint.
87.

First Amendment doctrine does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate

actual evidence of discriminatory and/or arbitrary treatment. The risk of such
discriminatory and/or arbitrary treatment in the absence of any constraints is
sufficient. Forsyth Cnty., 505 U.S. at 133 n.10; City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 76970. Nevertheless, this Complaint has alleged numerous actual instances of arbitrary
and/or discriminatory treatment which directly result from a procedure marked by
unconstrained official discretion in the restoration of voting rights to ex-felons.
88.

FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA.

CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the
Florida Rules of Executive Clemency require that an ex-felon obtain the Executive
Clemency Board’s permission in order to regain his or her right to vote, and therefore
function as a prior restraint on First Amendment-protected voting. Florida state law
and administrative rules and procedures contain no constraints on the Board’s
discretionary power to grant or deny applications for the restoration of voting rights,
making the system prone to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. As a licensing
scheme of standard-less, unfettered official discretion, it violates the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
89.

At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
61

90.

Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will

continue to deprive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of their right to be free from
unconstitutional prior restraints and/or unconstitutional time, place and manner
regulations in seeking the restoration of their voting rights. This right is guaranteed
to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT TWO
(All Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class)
(Arbitrary Allocation of the Franchise in Violation of Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983)
91.

The factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are

incorporated into Count Two, as though fully set forth herein.
92.

Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
93.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from

“deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
94.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the

right to vote and applies to both “the initial allocation of the franchise” and “the
manner of its exercise.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

62

95.

Defendant-Members of the Executive Clemency Board are vested with

the authority to deny or grant applications for the restoration of civil rights. The
board’s discretion in allocating the franchise to ex-felons is absolute and purely
arbitrary in that the Board’s decisions are unconstrained by any laws or rules.
96.

Not only is this restoration scheme prone to arbitrary treatment but this

Complaint has alleged numerous actual instances of “arbitrary and disparate
treatment,” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 104, which is the inevitable result of a voting
rights restoration or licensing scheme devoid of any legal constraints on official
discretion.
97.

FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA.

CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the
Florida Rules of Executive Clemency require that an ex-felon obtain the Executive
Clemency Board’s permission in order to regain his or her right to vote, and therefore
turn over the allocation of the franchise to the arbitrary determinations of state
officials. Florida state law and administrative rules and procedures do not in any
way regulate or limit the Board’s discretionary authority to grant or deny
applications for the restoration of voting rights. As a voter licensing scheme of
standard-less, unfettered official discretion, it also violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
98.

At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
63

99.

Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will

continue to deprive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of their right to non-arbitrary
treatment in the state government’s allocation of the right to vote to ex-felons. This
right is guaranteed to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT THREE
(All Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class)
(Lack of Definitive Time Limits for Determinations on Voting Rights
Restoration Applications in Violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
100. The factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are
incorporated into Count Three, as though fully set forth herein.
101. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
102. The First Amendment provides that: “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S.
CONST. amend. I, § 1.
103. The First Amendment protects the right to vote because voting is both
a form of speech or expressive conduct and a means of political association. Doe v.
Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 195-96 & n.1 (2010); id. at 224 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“We
have acknowledged the existence of a First Amendment interest in voting . . .”)
64

(citing Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)); California Democratic Party v.
Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S.
351, 354-57 (1997); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-43
(1995); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 437-39 (1992); Norman v. Reed, 502
U.S. 279, 288-90 (1992); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S.
208, 214-17 (1986); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193, 199
(1986); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787-89 (1983); Illinois State Bd. of
Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979); Storer v. Brown,
415 U.S. 724, 728-29 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-58 (1973);
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31 (1968). Because registration is a prerequisite
to and/or enables voting in primary and general elections, it too is protected by the
First Amendment. See Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377,
400 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[A] decision to contribute money to a
campaign is a matter of First Amendment concern—not because money is speech (it
is not); but because it enables speech.”) (emphasis in original).
104. First Amendment doctrine clearly holds that “a prior restraint that fails
to place limits on the time within which the decisionmaker must issue the license is
impermissible.” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 226 (1990) (citing
Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 59 (1965)). “Where the licensor has
unlimited time within which to issue a license, the risk of arbitrary suppression is as
65

great as the provision of unbridled discretion. A scheme that fails to set reasonable
time limits on the decisionmaker creates the risk of indefinitely suppressing
permissible speech.” Id. at 227; see also Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of North
Carolina, Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 802 (1988) (“[D]elay compels the speaker’s silence.
Under these circumstances, the licensing provision cannot stand.”); United States v.
Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231, 1238-40 (11th Cir. 2000).
105. Florida’s Executive Clemency Board is not bound by any reasonable,
definite time limits in processing and reaching final decisions on applications for the
restoration of civil rights. Florida state law and the Rules of Executive Clemency
are devoid of any such time limits for granting or denying ex-felon applicants their
right or license to vote.
106. Upon information and belief, ex-felon applicants for restoration of
voting rights may wait as many as ten years to finally receive notice of a hearing
and/or a determination on their applications. The backlog stood at 10,513 applicants
as of March 1, 2017. Other restoration applicants may be scheduled for a hearing
within months of applying. Though the significant backlog of applicants is making
longer delays more common, the Executive Clemency Board and the Office of
Executive Clemency may still process individual restoration applications at their
own chosen speed and may deliberately fast-track selective applicants while
delaying others.
66

107. Since no provision in Florida state law, including the Rules of
Executive Clemency, requires the Board to process and adjudicate an application for
restoration of civil rights within a definite, reasonable time period, FLA. CONST. art.
VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST.
art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of Executive
Clemency create the risk of arbitrary delays and arbitrary continued
disenfranchisement and therefore violate the First Amendment.
108. FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA.
CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the
Florida Rules of Executive Clemency require that an ex-felon obtain the Executive
Clemency Board’s permission in order to regain his or her right to vote, and therefore
function as a prior restraint on First Amendment-protected voting. Florida state law
and administrative rules and procedures contain no time constraints on the Board’s
processing of and determinations regarding applications for the restoration of voting
rights, making the system prone to arbitrary treatment. As a scheme of standardless, unfettered official discretion with no reasonable time limits, Florida’s voting
rights restoration process violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
109. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
110. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will
continue to deprive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of their right to an ex-felon
67

voting rights restoration scheme with definite time limits on the Board’s ultimate
determinations, which is guaranteed to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT FOUR
(Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa and Subclass A)
(Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
111. The factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are
incorporated into Count Four, as though fully set forth herein.
112. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,
any burden on the right to vote must be balanced against a state’s interest in that
requirement. The Supreme Court has set forth the following test:
[T]he rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law
depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights
are subjected to “severe” restrictions, the regulation must be “narrowly drawn
to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Norman v. Reed, 502
U.S. 279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 705, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992). But when a state
election law provision imposes only “reasonable, nondiscriminatory
restrictions” upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, “the
State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify” the
restrictions. Anderson, 460 U.S., at 788, 103 S.Ct., at 1569–1570; see also id.,
at 788–789, n. 9, 103 S.Ct., at 1569–1570, n. 9.
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
113. Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10 impose 5- and 7-year
waiting periods, respectively, on ex-felons who seek to regain their right to vote. An
ex-felon must wait out this de facto second sentence before he or she can even apply
68

for restoration of his or her right to vote. This is a severe restriction on the right to
vote which is not justified by or narrowly drawn to any state interest of compelling
importance. At a minimum though, the pre-application waiting periods restrict the
right to vote but cannot be justified by any important regulatory interest.
114. These ex-felons have already served their court-imposed sentences
including any period of parole, probation, supervised release and/or community
control. Additionally, applicants for restoration of civil rights often languish in the
Executive Clemency Board’s backlog for years after they apply. Therefore, the
state’s interest in imposing an additional waiting period before the disenfranchised
ex-felon can apply for re-enfranchisement is neither compelling nor important.
115. Florida Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10 impose severely
restrictive waiting periods on Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa and Subclass A
members before they can even seek the Executive Clemency Board’s permission in
order to regain their voting rights. Since these waiting periods are not justified by
any compelling or important state interest, they violate the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
116. But for the waiting periods imposed by Florida Rules of Executive
Clemency 9 and 10, Plaintiff Ms. Guanipa and Subclass A members would be able
to apply to the Executive Clemency Board for the restoration of their voting rights
upon the completion of their sentence, including any period of parole, probation,
69

supervised release and/or community control. At present, they are barred from
applying until 5 or 7 additional years elapse and therefore deprived of even an
opportunity to regain their voting rights.
117. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
118. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have unduly burdened and
will continue to unduly burden Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa and Subclass A
members’ rights to vote, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to regain their
voting rights. The right to vote free of undue burdens is guaranteed to Plaintiff Ms.
Guanipa and Subclass A by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and Subclass A respectfully request that this
Court:
(a) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
(b) Certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(c) Appoint counsel as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g);
(d) Declare that Florida’s requirement in FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA.
STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV,
70

§ 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of Executive
Clemency that a disenfranchised ex-felon must petition the Governor and
his Cabinet sitting as the Executive Clemency Board for the restoration of
his or her right to vote, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution as to the right to vote;
(e) Issue a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants Governor of Florida
Rick Scott, Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi, Chief Financial
Officer of Florida Jeff Atwater, Commissioner of Agriculture Adam H.
Putnam, the members of the State Executive Clemency Board, Secretary
of State Ken Detzner, Secretary of the Department of Corrections Julie L.
Jones, Commissioner and Chair of the Florida Commission on Offender
Review Melinda N. Coonrod, Commissioner of the Florida Commission
on Offender Review Richard D. Davison, Commissioner of the Florida
Commission on Offender Review David A. Wyant, and Coordinator for
the Office of Executive Clemency of the Florida Commission on Offender
Review Julia McCall, their respective agents, officers, employees,
successors, and all persons acting in concert with them (collectively,
“Defendants”) from enforcing FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN.
§ 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA.

71

STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules of Executive Clemency as
to Plaintiff Class members’ right to vote;
(f) Issue a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants from requiring
Plaintiff Class members to petition the Executive Clemency Board for and
secure the restoration of their voting rights – pursuant to FLA. CONST. art.
VI, § 4(a), FLA. STAT. ANN. § 97.041(2)(a), FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4, FLA.
CONST. art. IV, § 8, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) and the Florida Rules
of Executive Clemency.
(g) Issue a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants from denying any
member of the Plaintiff Class the right to register to vote and cast a ballot
in the State of Florida on the grounds of his or her prior felony convictions;
(h) Issue a permanent injunction requiring Defendants Governor of Florida
Rick Scott, Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi, Chief Financial
Officer of Florida Jeff Atwater, Commissioner of Agriculture Adam H.
Putnam, the members of the State Executive Clemency Board, their
respective agents, officers, employees, successors, and all persons acting
in concert with them, to revise the Florida Rules for Executive Clemency,
the Application for Clemency, and the Executive Clemency Board’s
website to reflect that Plaintiff Class members may register to vote and
vote upon completion of their sentences;
72

(i) Issue a permanent injunction requiring Defendant Secretary of State
Detzner, his respective agents, officers, employees, successors, and all
persons acting in concert with him, including but not limited to all of
Florida’s County Supervisors of Elections, to revise all paper and
electronic materials including the Florida Voter Registration Application,
the Secretary of State’s website, and the County Supervisors of Elections
websites to reflect that Plaintiff Class members may register to vote and
vote upon completion of their sentences; to provide revised training and
guidance for the County Supervisors of Elections and their staff on the
judgment in this case; to e-mail and mail notices to the County Supervisors
of Elections announcing the judgment in this case; and to issue a directive
to the County Supervisors of Elections ordering them not to reject the voter
registration applications of any Plaintiff Class members on account of their
prior felony convictions;
(j) Issue a permanent injunction requiring Secretary of the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) Julie L. Jones, her respective agents, officers,
employees, successors, and all persons acting in concert with her, to inform
all individuals released from DOC custody with no further period of
parole, probation, supervised release and/or community control that they
can register to vote and vote; to inform all individuals released from DOC
73

custody subject to a period of parole, probation, supervised release and/or
community control that they will be able to register to vote and vote once
they complete their sentences including parole, probation, supervised
release and/or community control; and on a monthly basis, to send to the
Florida Secretary of State’s office and the Florida Commission on
Offender Review e-mailed and paper copies of the full list of names and
personally identifying information of all ex-felons who have completed
their sentences including any period of parole, probation, supervised
release and/or community control in the previous month;
(k) Issue a permanent injunction requiring Commissioner and Chair of the
Florida Commission on Offender Review Melinda N. Coonrod,
Commissioner of the Florida Commission on Offender Review Richard D.
Davison and Commissioner of the Florida Commission on Offender
Review David A. Wyant, their respective agents, officers, employees,
successors, and all persons acting in concert with them, to ensure all
communications with ex-felons inform all pending and new applicants for
restoration of civil rights that their rights to vote have been automatically
restored upon completion of sentence, their applications are moot as to the
right to vote but not as to the right to serve on a jury or the right to run for
public office, and that they are now qualified to register to vote and vote
74

in the State of Florida; and directing the Commissioners to revise the
website of the Florida Commission on Offender Review to reflect the
judgment in this case;
(l) Issue a permanent injunction requiring Coordinator for the Office of
Executive Clemency of the Florida Commission on Offender Review Julia
McCall, her respective agents, officers, employees, successors, and all
persons acting in concert with her, to inform all pending and new
applicants for restoration of civil rights that their rights to vote have been
automatically restored upon completion of their sentences, their
applications are moot as to the right to vote but not as to the right to serve
on a jury or the right to run for public office, and that they are now qualified
to register to vote and vote in the State of Florida;
(m)

In the alternative – and only if the Court rules in favor of Plaintiffs

solely on Count Four – declare the 5- and 7-year waiting periods in Florida
Rules of Executive Clemency 9 and 10 unconstitutional in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as to members
of Subclass A of the Plaintiff Class; permanently enjoin the enforcement
of these requirements by Defendants as to members of Subclass A of the
Plaintiff Class; and require the Florida Department of Corrections,
Commission on Offender Review and Office of Executive Clemency to
75

revise all communications, materials, websites, applications and any other
relevant internal or public-facing documents and/or materials to reflect that
Subclass A members may apply for restoration of their voting rights upon
completion of their sentences;
(n) Retain jurisdiction to enforce its order;
(o) Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
bringing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and
as otherwise permitted by law; and
(p) Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED: March 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brittnie R. Baker
Brittnie R. Baker
Florida Bar No. 119058
D.C. Bar No. 1033708
Jon Sherman*
D.C. Bar No. 998271
New York Bar No. 4697348
Tiffany Davis**
New York Bar No. 5248000
Fair Elections Legal Network
1825 K St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20006
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Theodore Leopold
Florida Bar No. 705608
76

Diana L. Martin
Florida Bar No. 624489
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
2925 PGA Boulevard | Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
phone [phone]
fax [phone]
*Pro Hac Vice to Practice in the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida to Be
Filed
** Pro Hac Vice to Practice in the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida to Be
Filed and Working Under the Direct
Supervision of an Enrolled, Active
Member of the District of Columbia
Bar

77