Policy Impact Analysis: Restoration of Voting Rights to People With Felony Convictions in Florida (Amendment 4 and SB 7066)

Policy Impact Analysis: Restoration of Voting Rights to Convicted Felons in Florida

• Describe specific discriminatory issues in a given policy or program and connect a core value or standard from the NASW Code of Ethics.
• Explain the mechanisms that lead to the discriminatory issues.
• Describe how the policy has changed over time in response to issues of oppression, alienation or discrimination, and the rationale for these changes.
• Describe a specific population or subgroup (demographic distinctions, how many) affected by the policy.
• Provide relevant, real-world examples of the policy’s impacts.
• Support and synthesize evidence; apply APA style. Minimum three academic resources.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,050 words).

Policy Impact Analysis: Restoration of Voting Rights to People With Felony Convictions in Florida

Voting is a cornerstone of democratic citizenship, yet Florida bars more people from voting because of felony convictions than any other state. More than 960,000 Floridians could not vote in 2024 because of a felony conviction (Napal & Budd, 2025). This paper analyzes Florida’s policies on restoring voting rights, including Amendment 4 and Senate Bill 7066, describes their discriminatory effects and connects them to social work values.

Discriminatory Issues and the NASW Code of Ethics

Florida’s policy discriminates in two main ways. First, it disproportionately excludes Black citizens: more than 12% of voting-age Black Floridians were disenfranchised in 2024, more than two and a half times the rate for non-Black Floridians (Napal & Budd, 2025). Second, it discriminates by wealth. Under SB 7066, people who have completed their prison, probation and parole terms cannot vote until they pay all court fines, fees, costs and restitution, known as legal financial obligations (LFOs). Nearly 730,000 Floridians have completed their sentences but remain disenfranchised because of unpaid LFOs, which critics call a “poverty penalty” (Napal & Budd, 2025).

These practices conflict with the NASW Code of Ethics value of social justice, which calls on social workers to pursue change on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed people, and with Standard 6.04, Social and Political Action, which directs social workers to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources and opportunities they need and to expand choice for disadvantaged and exploited groups (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2021). Denying a vote based on inability to pay also conflicts with the value of the dignity and worth of the person, since it treats citizens’ political voice as something that can be purchased.

Mechanisms Leading to Discrimination

Several mechanisms produce these outcomes. The first is historical design. Florida’s lifetime voting ban for felony convictions dates to its 1868 constitution, adopted after the Civil War when Black men gained the right to vote. Research shows that states with larger nonwhite prison populations were more likely to adopt or expand felony disenfranchisement laws, suggesting that racial threat shaped these policies (Behrens et al., 2003). The second mechanism is racial disparity in the criminal legal system: Black Floridians are about 15% of the population but almost 48% of the prison population, so any punishment tied to conviction falls more heavily on Black communities (Napal & Budd, 2025). The third mechanism is economic. LFOs often total hundreds or thousands of dollars, many people leaving prison face unemployment and poverty, and the state lacks a centralized database showing what people owe, leaving many unsure whether they are eligible. The fourth mechanism is fear and confusion. Because voting while ineligible is a felony, uncertainty discourages eligible people from registering.

How the Policy Has Changed Over Time

For more than a century, Floridians with felony convictions could regain voting rights only through clemency granted by the governor and Cabinet. Restoration rates varied widely by administration and dropped sharply after 2011, when the clemency board imposed waiting periods of five to seven years before people could even apply (Napal & Budd, 2025). In November 2018, nearly 65% of voters approved Amendment 4, which automatically restored voting rights to people who completed “all terms of sentence including parole or probation,” except those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses (Klueber & Grabiner, 2020). Analysts estimated that it could restore rights to more than 1.4 million people (Klueber & Grabiner, 2020).

In 2019, however, the Legislature passed SB 7066, defining “all terms of sentence” to include full payment of LFOs. Civil rights groups challenged the law, arguing that it functioned as a poll tax. A federal district court initially agreed, but in September 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the payment requirement (Jones v. Governor of Florida, 2020). As a result, most of the people Amendment 4 was meant to help remain unable to vote.

Rationale for the Changes

Supporters of Amendment 4 argued that people who have completed their sentences have paid their debt to society and should be reintegrated as full citizens, that voting is associated with civic engagement and successful reentry and that lifetime bans are unusually harsh compared with most states (Manza & Uggen, 2006). The broad bipartisan vote reflected public support for second chances. Supporters of SB 7066 argued that the Legislature was implementing the amendment’s plain language, which referred to “all terms of sentence,” and that paying restitution to victims is part of completing a sentence. Critics responded that the law undermined voters’ intent and conditioned a constitutional right on wealth.

Population Affected

The affected population includes more than 960,000 Floridians with felony convictions who cannot vote, including about 730,000 who have completed their sentences but owe LFOs (Napal & Budd, 2025). Black Floridians are disproportionately represented, with more than one in eight Black voting-age adults disenfranchised. People with low incomes, who cannot afford to pay court debt, are also heavily affected. Many are parents, workers and taxpayers living in their communities.

Real-World Examples

The confusion surrounding eligibility has had serious consequences. In August 2022, the state’s newly created election crimes office announced the arrests of about 20 people with prior convictions for voting illegally, even though many had received voter registration cards from election officials and said they believed they were eligible; several cases were later dismissed. Such events discourage other eligible returning citizens from registering. After Amendment 4 took effect, registrations among returning citizens rose and then fell as court rulings and SB 7066 changed the outlook, and Black Floridians made up a larger share of new registrants than of the eligible population, showing strong demand for restored rights (Klueber & Grabiner, 2020).

Synthesis and Implications for Social Work

Together, the evidence shows that a policy designed to expand democracy was narrowed by financial requirements that reproduce historical racial and economic exclusion. Social workers can respond by helping clients determine eligibility and what they owe, connecting them with organizations that help pay fines and fees, advocating for a centralized LFO database and for waiving unpaid fees, and supporting broader restoration of voting rights, consistent with the NASW commitments to social justice and political action.

References

Behrens, A., Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot manipulation and the “menace of Negro domination”: Racial threat and felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 559–605. https://doi.org/10.1086/378647

Jones v. Governor of Florida, 975 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc).

Klueber, A., & Grabiner, J. (2020). Voting rights restoration in Florida: Amendment 4. Analyzing electoral impact & its barriers [Policy analysis exercise]. Harvard Kennedy School. https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/voting_rights_restoration_in_florida_-_amendment_4_final.pdf

Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press.

Napal, D., & Budd, K. M. (2025). Florida bans voting rights of over 960,000 citizens. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/florida-bans-voting-rights-of-over-960000-citizens/

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics