Category: News Feeds

Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) members on Tuesday 26 May 2020 charged
Harare North legislator Hon. Joana Mamombe, Cecelia Chimbiri and
Netsai Marova with participating in a gathering with intent to promote
public violence, breaches of the peace or bigotry as defined in
section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and for
contravening section 5(3) (a) as read with section 5(1) of Statutory
Instrument 99 of 2020 of Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention,
Containment and Treatment) (National Lockdown) Order, 2020.

According to ZRP members, Hon. Mamombe, Chimbiri and Marova, who are
represented by Jeremiah Bamu of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
(ZLHR), allegedly participated in an illegal demonstration held on 13
May 2020 in Warren Park 1 suburb in which opposition MDC-Alliance
party supporters allegedly staged a flash demonstration protesting
against hunger at a time when the country was under a government
enforced national lockdown.

The decision to press criminal charges against Hon. Mamombe, Chimbiri
and Marova come at a time when the trio is receiving treatment at a
local medical facility following their abduction, disappearance and
torture on 13 May 2020.

To date, no arrests have been made by ZRP of people who abducted,
disappeared and tortured the opposition youth leaders.

Meanwhile, ZRP members on Tuesday 26 May 2020 arrested and charged
Lovejoy Chitengu, the Youth Organising Secretary for the MDC-Alliance
party’s Harare Province with participating in a gathering with intent
to promote public violence, breaches of the peace or bigotry as
defined in section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform)
Act and for contravening section 5(3)(a) as read with section 5(1) of
Statutory Instrument 99 of 2020 of Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention,
Containment and Treatment) (National Lockdown) Order, 2020.

The arrest of Chitengu, who is represented by Gift Mtisi of ZLHR,
follows that of Stanley Manyenga, the opposition MDC-Alliance party
Councillor for Ward 23 in Harare, who was arrested on 20 May 2020 on
similar allegations.

Manyenga, who is represented by Mtisi, is accused of participating in
an anti-government demonstration held on 13 May 2020 held at Warren
Park 1 suburb, where he allegedly carried a placard inscribed “ Unlock
Us Before We Revolt”.

Manyenga is out of custody after he was granted bail on Friday 22 May 2020.

Both the National Assembly and the Senate met last week.  The National Assembly sat for 15 minutes on Tuesday 19th May [for prayers and announcements] – not at Parliament but at the Harare International Conference Centre to allow social distancing although seventy members only attended.  It then adjourned for one week until Tuesday 26th May.  Sittings this week will be at Parliament [see below for special arrangements].

The Senate sat in the National Assembly Chamber to allow for social distancing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons and then adjourned until Tuesday 9th June.

This bulletin will first summarise the agenda for the National Assembly today and then review the  proceedings that took place last week in both Houses.

Coming up This Week in the National Assembly

Approval of new National Assembly Standing Orders

Item 1 on the Order Paper for 26th May is a motion by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs for the adoption by the House of the 2020 Edition of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.

Last week the presiding officers in both Houses informed members that the new Standing Orders had been circulated to them electronically and urged them to study the new rules in preparation for forthcoming motions for their approval by each House.  

Bills for consideration appear next on the Order Paper in the following order:

Bill for Committee Stage

Marriages Bill [link]

The Committee Stage is due to start, as it has been since the House approved the Second Reading on 10th March. The Order Paper has three amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.  As foreshadowed in the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, these amendments include the retention of clause 40 on civil partnerships – but with modifications to ensure fair treatment of women partners on the breakup of civil partnerships.  The Minister’s three amendments [link] propose:

• replacement of clause 9 to ensure that only chiefs specially designated by the Minister will be marriage officers for the purpose of solemnising customary marriages;
• insertion of an entirely new clause after clause 9 to make ambassadors and similar officials in charge of diplomatic or consular missions marriage officers for the purpose of solemnising marriages as long as one of the parties to the marriage is a Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident;
• retention of clause 40 recognising civil partnerships – even where one of the partners is legally married to someone else – but with subclause (5) being replaced by new subclauses (5) and (6) [see link above] in an attempt to specify the rights of the other partner to a share of the assets of the legally married partner in the event of a dispute.

Bills awaiting continuation of Second Reading debate

Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill [link]

The Media Commission is one of the five Independent Commissions Supporting Democracy established by Chapter 12 of the Constitution; under the former Constitution.  This Bill is intended to flesh out the bare bones of the very brief constitutional provisions [Constitution, sections 248, 249 and 250].  It will take the place of the unsatisfactory provisions of AIPPA, which have performed this function since this Commission first attained constitutional status in January 2008.  [Note: Parliament has already passed the Freedom of Information Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will repeal AIPPA.]  The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs presented the Minister’s Second Reading speech on 10th March, followed by Hon Chikwinya’s presentation of the Portfolio Committee’s critical report [link] on the Bill, public hearings having been held in October 2019.  The report notes the committee’s intention to propose amendments at the Committee Stage of the Bill.  After the presentation of the Committee’s report, Hon Kindness Paradza, himself a journalist and a member of the Committee, spoke passionately and knowledgeably about the need for the Bill to change the media landscape in Zimbabwe, for the media to be free and for the Government to relinquish control of the media.

Veterans of the Liberation Struggle Bill [link]

When the Bill was last in the House, debate progressed well, with several contributions from MPs after the Minister’s opening speech and the presentation of the report of the Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services.  The impression conveyed, both by the Portfolio Committee and MPs who spoke, was that struggle veterans and their organisations were not particularly happy with the Bill.

Bills for start of Second Reading stage

The following Bills have all received non-adverse reports from the PLC and are ready for the responsible Ministers to start the Second Reading stages by delivering speeches explaining the principles of each Bill – why a Bill is necessary, how it is intended to do whatever is necessary, etc.  Parliament has already invited public comment on all the Bills apart from the Attorney-General’s Office Amendment Bill, but no public hearings have been held.

Constitutional Court Bill [link]

Forest Amendment Bill [link]

This Bill, amongst other amendments to the Forest Act, has a clause [clause 12] amending section 78 of the Act, which provides for what the Act calls “major offences”.  For setting of fires without authority in both State and private forests, clause 12 removes the option of a minimum fine from the existing mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of section 78(2) – this makes a minimum prison sentence of 5 years or, in less serious cases, 1 year, mandatory.  For fires left unattended on other land the levels of the existing mandatory fines in section 78(3) are reduced without changing the existing prison sentences.

Clause 12 also proposes adding a new section 78(4), which will oblige “the Court” [presumably a court sentencing someone for contravening section 78(1), (2) or (3)?] to ”take into account such aggravating factors as loss of human life, livestock, wildlife and other property”.  It then adds an incomprehensible proviso that “penalties for such offences” [which offences?] “shall apply as is provided for under the Parks and Wildlife Act … or the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act … whichever is greater”.  MPs will certainly need to demand a full explanation of this puzzling proviso.

There are other measures too, for instance, to decentralise to forestry and environmental officers decisions on such matters as the adequacy of fireguards.  The Bill also includes provisions designed to ensure the Forestry Commission Board includes persons with special qualifications in forestry, environmental planning and management and ecology, and that its membership and the staffing of the Commission is gender-balanced.

National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill [link]

Attorney-General’s Office Amendment Bill [link]

Financial Adjustments Bill [link]

This Bill was critically discussed at length in Bill Watch 66/2019 [link].  The fact that the PLC had the Bill under consideration for several months before returning a non-adverse report suggests that the PLC and the Minister of Finance and Economic Development may have reached agreement on amendments to the Bill to at least render it more informative on the nature of the many acts of unauthorised spending by Ministries.  But MPs are sure to want to know how such huge unauthorised debts were run up without any knowledge of Parliament.

In the Senate 19th to 21st May

Appointment of Leader of Government Business in the Senate

On 19th May Senate President Chinomona announced that President Mnangagwa had appointed Retired Air Chief Marshal Shiri, Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement as Leader of Government Business in the Senate.

Three international loan agreements approved

On 19th May the Senate duly adopted three motions proposed by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development for the approval of three international loan agreements in terms of section 327(2) of the Constitution, under which loan agreements with foreign organisations or entities do not bind Zimbabwe until approved by Parliament.

1. With Export-Import Bank of China for NetOne Mobile Broadband Expansion Project Phase III

Date signed: 26th June 2019.  Amount: US$ 71 million on soft loan terms, to be repaid by NetOne with funds generated from sales of airtime and internet data.  Approved without debate.

2. With Export-Import Bank of  India for Deka Pumping Station and Intake System Project

Date signed: 3rd June 2019.  Amount: US$ 19.5 million on soft loan terms, to be repaid direct to the bank by Zimbabwe Power Company [ZPC].  This project aims to improve the supply of Zambezi River water to the expanded Hwange Power Station.  Senator Komichi, speaking with the experience of having worked for more than two decades at the pumping station, was able to elaborate on the need for the project.  Both Senators Komichi and Mudzuri stressed the need for Government to follow a cost-benefit approach to ensure that investments in the power sector result in significantly increased power production justifying the money spent.  Approved.

3. With Export-Import Bank of  India for Renovation of Bulawayo Thermal Power Station

Date signed: 3rd June 2019.  Amount US$ 23 million on soft loan terms, to be repaid direct to the bank by ZPC.  Again Senators stressed the need to ensure value for money when deciding to renovate aged power stations, rather than invest in new plants; they pointed out that previous renovation projects had not produced satisfactory improvements in power supply.  Approved.

Comment: These agreements were approved by the National Assembly in October last year but have only just come before the Senate for approval.  This means that none of these agreements should have come into force.  MPs need to check whether they did and if so whether interest has already been paid on these loans – any such payment of interest before Parliament’s approval is probably illegal.

Further debate on motion for abolition of death penalty

On Wednesday 20th May Senators devoted most of the afternoon to further debate on Senator Makone’s motion calling for the repeal of death sentence provisions in the Criminal Law Code and other Acts of Parliament.  In an interesting discussion most contributors favoured abolition.  Senator Chiefs reminded those present that the death sentence was unknown to traditional culture and had been a colonial introduction.  Senator Chief Nhema said the death penalty should be abolished in favour of life imprisonment, and also that chiefs’ courts should be allowed to apply traditional culture in cases of murder.  Senator Chief Makumbe also called for chiefs to be empowered to deal with murder cases in accordance with traditional practices and customs.  Senator Khupe cautioned against abolition of the death penalty without first holding extensive consultations with murder victims’ families to ascertain their attitude towards abolition..

In the National Assembly on 19th May

Before the adjournment to 26th May, the Speaker made several announcements to the just over 70 MPs present, as follows:

Committee work and public hearings

Eight committees with direct responsibility and oversight on the Corona Virus outbreak had been selected by Parliament to resume meeting and the Clerk of Parliament was making necessary arrangements for other committees to be functional the following week.  Details and arrangements for public hearings by committees would be announced in due course.

Sittings from 26th May to be both physical and virtual

Members would have to familiarise themselves with their tablets in preparation for participation in proceedings “through virtual technology” within the premises of Parliament, because some members would not be accommodated in the National Assembly chamber.  Arrangements would be notified in due course.

Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC] reports received

Non-adverse reports had been received from the PLC on:

• the Attorney-General’s Office Amendment Bill
• the Financial Adjustments Bill
• Statutory Instruments gazetted during March, except for the Petroleum (Direct Fuel Imports and Marketing of Fuel) Regulations , 2020, SI 65/2020 [link]
• Statutory Instruments gazetted during April, except for the Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment) (National Lockdown) (Amendment) Order (No. 2), SI 86/2020 [link] which added eight activities to the definition of “essential service” in the principal National Lockdown Order, SI 83/2020 [link]. 

[Note: This clears SIs 58 to 64, 65A to 85 and 87 to 97 as being, in the opinion of the PLC, not inconsistent with the Constitution.  It is uncertain whether there will be adverse reports on SI 65/2020 and SI 86/2020 or whether the PLC is discussing them with the relevant Ministry, with a view to adjusting them.]

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

The MDC Alliance is dismayed by the recent cynical statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Sibusiso Moyo that attempted to cast doubt on the abductions, and callously insinuates they were ”stage-managed-theatre,” while at the same time claiming that the government takes the allegations seriously and is investigating them.

Such reckless and dismissive statements by the executive severely undermine the credibility of any regime-led investigations.

The regime’s disingenuous statement comes after the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a constitutional body mandated to receive and investigate complaints of violation of human rights from the public, confirmed the abductions, torture, and sexual abuses, as fact.

 Joana Mamombe, Cecilia Chimbiri, and Netsai Marova were initially arrested by the police at a roadblock on the 13th of May 2020 and taken to Harare Central Police Station where they were handed over to the abductors.

The arrest of the three was confirmed by the National Police Spokesperson Assistant Inspector Paul Nyathi to State-run newspaper, The Herald and the privately-owned Daily News on the 14th of May 2020.

In addition, the vehicle that was being driven by Joana Mamombe at the point of arrest is still parked at Harare Central Police Station.

 The MDC Alliance is extremely concerned that the Police Forensic Department took inappropriate pictures of the three women for the purposes of ‘investigations’ but the photos were leaked and found their way  on social media, thereby further victimising and traumatising the victims.

Such unprofessional conduct by the police speaks volumes on the captured nature of Zimbabwe’s institutions and the ability of the same police to conduct professional and thorough investigations.

The horrific abuses that the three women suffered are a violation of the Zimbabwe Constitution which strictly prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and guarantees personal security and dignity of all citizens.

Zimbabwe is party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) which guarantees women’s rights, their participation in political processes, protection against violence and punishment of perpetrators.

In addition, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The ordeal of the three women are also a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention Against Torture, Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The abduction of the three young women is part of a growing list, the MDC Alliance recorded a total 49 abductions since August 2018 targeting opposition leaders and activists.

Invariably, all these abductions were carried out by armed men with rifles who targeted victims for being opponents of the government.

So far, inexplicably, there has been no single arrest of any of the abductors.

The abductors continue to act with impunity.

Similarly, the perpetrators of the 1 August 2018 killings in Harare of six individuals in post-election protests were never prosecuted despite recommendations of the Motlanthe Commission.

In January 2019, a further 17 killings and 17 cases of rape were conducted by security forces with impunity.

Indeed, the ever-increasing number of such cases of State-sanctioned impunity only serves to expose the so-called “New Dispensation” as a charade that may even be worse than the previous regime led by the late President Robert Mugabe.

The perpetual cycles of human rights abuses and impunity, and reckless statements by the executive, point to compromised justice institutions with no capacity or independence to conduct thorough investigations and produce a robust and true account of what happened to the three MDC Alliance Youth Assembly leaders in a way that ensures that justice is served.

We demand justice for the three young women. Those who committed these horrendous deeds must account for their actions. It is time to break the cycles of abuse and impunity.

Gladys Kudzaishe Hlatywayo
Secretary for International Relations

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Wolters Kluwer

I hate this time of the year. It is neither the pollen, nor is it the erratic weather. And this year, it is not just because of COVID-19. For me, personally, March through June represents a period of personal loss, a season when I mark the anniversaries of the deaths of my mother, uncles, an aunt, a cousin, and all four grandparents.

As a trusts and estates attorney, I deal a lot with death, whether it is clients considering the disposition of their estates, counseling families upon the passing of their loved ones, or advocating for an heir’s interest in an estate. I should be comfortable with the topic, and I normally am, except that sometimes, during this season it gets to me.

Way before I ever practiced law and years before I ever knew what it meant to be an estate lawyer, I had four grandparents, at least for a moment. One grandmother died a week after I was born.  The next died when I was three.  My grandfathers died a year apart, and by the time I turned 13, I was grandparent-less. By the time I turned 30, I was motherless.

I am consistently jealous of adults with parents and grandparents and individuals blessed with the opportunity to bear the title “great” grandparent. The loss of a parent is immeasurable and from a planning perspective, grandparents’ estates can make for very interesting cases.

Unfortunately, many grandparents face illness which cause them to spend their lifelong savings on home and nursing care. Some grandparents may not have amassed significant savings as a result of their careers or life experiences. Others have earned and saved a lot and have the ability to give.

Generally, probate laws tells us that we are supposed to give our estate to our spouse and also to our children. Grandchildren take if their parent, a son or daughter,  predeceases their parent, the decedent. Often times, a last will and testament or the laws of intestacy will describe a distribution by stating per stirpes, per representation, or per capita. This marks the way the testator wishes to distribute the asset in the event of the death of a descendant.

But what about bequeathing to grandchildren?  I am privy to many client stories of disappointing children, but wonderfully redeeming grandchildren.  As Gore Vidal stated: “Never have children, only grandchildren.” Sometimes, testators with robust estates make bequests to their grandchildren. Sometimes they even make significant gifts instead of giving to their own children. At times the bequest is something tangible, a family heirloom or maybe it is more significant, a financial or business interest.

Although bequeathing to a grandchild makes a statement about one’s feelings toward the descendant, sometimes it causes friction. Assets given to a grandchild may take away from the children, a generation above. While sometimes this is due to estate and tax planning, for example in the form of a generation-skipping trust, often this is done simply because the grandchildren are adored, preferred, or the testator wishes to leave a legacy for them specifically. This may cause strife between parent and child. It may even cause a child to contest a last will in court.

When disinheriting or treating a relative differently than others, a “no contest clause” or “in terrorem clause” is included in a last will to dissuade the excluded beneficiary from contesting the will’s terms. This kind of clause warns that any beneficiary who participates in a proceeding to contest the will, will, as well as her children and grandchildren, forfeit any interest under the will. As one can imagine, there can be significant litigation among families with regard to last wills and testaments and no contest clauses.

Some grandparents feel that a bequest to a grandchild is not necessary because a grandchild’s parent is receiving and therefore the grandchild’s life will be enhanced. Obviously every case is different, however, a bequest to a grandchild under a last will is an affirmative statement as to the grandparent’s love and recognition. It is a permanent expression, preserved in the last will and testament that becomes a family heirloom in and of itself. Certainly for those lucky enough to become grandparents, incorporating grandchildren into one’s estate plan is a unique opportunity, no matter the size or constitution of the legacy. For certain it will ease the pain and sense of loss, when that generation has passed.

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

Ed. note: Welcome to our daily feature, Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by ALM for their 2020 Am Law 100 ranking, which New York-based Biglaw firms in the top 100 saw a decline in revenue over last year?

Hint: Out of the 19 NY firms in the Am Law 100, five saw their revenue decline. 

See the answer on the next page.

I know by now that I’m known as John Mulaney’s mother. I thought I was done being known as somebody’s mother, but not so. I think it’s fun. It also makes [students] more likely to laugh at my jokes.

— Professor Ellen S. Mulaney of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, in comments given to the Daily Northwestern on the fame of her son, comedian John Mulaney, and how it affects her teaching. She teaches Torts, Legislation, and Basics of Contract Drafting. Mulaney’s father, Charles Mulaney, is a partner at Skadden.

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

On Sunday, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle held that a Florida statute requiring felons to pay all fines and fees before casting a ballot amounted to an illegal poll tax and was also void for vagueness. The sweeping 125-page decision will likely be appealed to the 11th Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court dragging out a final ruling for months. Luckily, there’s no history of Florida voters wreaking havoc in a presidential election year, so this should all be fine.

AHEM.

In a 2018 ballot initiative, 64 percent of Florida voter passed Amendment 4 restoring the franchise to residents with felony convictions upon the completion of parole and probation. In this same election, with potentially one million Floridians disenfranchised due to prior felony convictions, Republicans Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott eked out wins of less than 40,000 votes.

Immediately the Republican legislature swung into action, enacting “enabling” legislation mandating the payment of all fees and fines before voting rights could be restored. With the near universal imposition of hundreds of dollars of costs on all criminal defendants, most of whom are unable to pay, this amounted to a de facto revocation of Amendment 4.

The Eleventh Circuit already enjoined Florida from disenfranchising voters who are genuinely unable to pay, but Judge Hinkle’s decision goes much further and seems deliberately tailored to withstand appeal.

In 2012, Justice Roberts classified the penalty for not purchasing health insurance as a “tax” in the case upholding the legality of Obamacare. Judge Hinkle explicitly relies on this logic to characterize mandatory court fees as “A tax by any other name” in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment’s ban on poll taxes, differentiating court assessments from punitive fines or restitution. Particularly since those fees are set by statute, unrelated to the offense, and imposed on defendants who plead no-contest with no explicit judicial finding or admission of guilt.

If a state chose to fund its criminal-justice system by assessing a $10 fee against every resident of the state, nobody would doubt it was a tax. Florida has chosen to fund its criminal-justice system by assessing just such a fee, but to assess it not against all residents but only against those who are alleged to have committed a criminal offense and are not exonerated. As a measure designed to raise revenue to fund the government, this would be a tax even if exacted only from those adjudged guilty. The result is made more clear by the state’s exaction of the fee even from those not adjudged guilty.

Worse yet, Florida has no reliable system for felons to get an accurate accounting of fees owed. Here are two examples from the many named plaintiffs who could have been plucked from a ConLaw exam.

Mr. Mitchell was unaware he owed any amount until he registered to vote and received a notice from his county’s Clerk of Court. He now believes he owes $4,483 arising from convictions in Miami-Dade and Okeechobee Counties. The record does not show what amounts were included in his sentences. The MiamiDade Clerk of Court’s website includes a docket entry indicating $754 was assessed as costs. One cannot know, from this record, what amount the State asserts Mr. Mitchell must pay to vote. But Mr. Mitchell works at a nonprofit without salary; even if the amount was only $754, Mr. Mitchell would be unable to pay it.

Ms. Riddle was convicted of felonies between 1975 and 1988 in two different counties. She asked the Clerks of Court for copies of the records of the convictions, but she was told the Clerks were unable to find them. Ms. Riddle apparently owes roughly $1,800 in connection with later convictions, but the Clerk’s records do not match those maintained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Ms. Riddle is unable to pay that amount. Ms. Riddle does not know, and despite diligent efforts has been unable to find out, how much the State says she must pay to vote.

I’ll take “Void For Vagueness” for $600, Alex!

In an amicus brief to the Eleventh Circuit urging that court to uphold the right of states to condition voting rights upon ability to pay court fees, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah argued that the states “have a substantial interest in ensuring that they can continue to pursue the goal of re-enfranchisement alongside other important state interests like deterrence, retribution, and restitution.” In other words, if the court won’t allow them to limit the franchise to rich felons who are able to pay to get their votes back, then the they’ll be forced to bar all felons from voting.

Which may work at the Eleventh Circuit, which Trump just flipped by elevating two judges recently installed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on the state’s Supreme Court to the federal bench. But Judge Hinkle was unpersuaded by that logic, or Florida’s facially bad faith argument that the “enabling legislation” was a simple clarification, not an attempt to circumvent the will of the voters.

In 18 months since Amendment 4 was adopted, the State has done almost nothing to address the problem—nothing, that is, except to jettison the most logical method for determining whether the required amount has been paid and substituting a bizarre method that no prospective voter would anticipate and that doesn’t solve the problem.  The flaws in Florida’s approach are especially egregious because a person who claims a right to vote and turns out to be wrong may face criminal prosecution.

And now we wait to see what novel clusterf*ck will be visited upon the electorate in 2020 by the courts and the Sunshine State. They’ll have to work hard to top 2000’s hanging chads/Brooks Brothers riot/butterfly ballot debacle. Dig deep, Florida man, you can do it!

Opinion On the Merits [Kevin Leon Jones v. Ron DeSantis, No. 4:19-cv-00300-RH-MJF (N. D. Fla., May 24, 2020)]
’A game-changer’: Five takeaways from Sunday’s ruling on felon voting [Tampa Bay Times]

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.