Blayne D. Williams, Sr. v. Norman Bennett and I. B. Helburn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that heightened scrutiny is warranted where the state “demanded that punishment continue for some and not others based on wealth” and doubly so “where the punishment itself takes the form of denying access to the franchise”
• detailing an expert’s opinion that over 80 percent of people “with felony convictions who had completed their terms of incarceration, parole, or probation . . . had outstanding LFOs”
• “Florida’s continued disenfranchisement of these seventeen plaintiffs is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest.” (emphasis added)
• “[O]nce a state provides an avenue to ending the punishment of disenfranchisement—as the voters of Florida plainly did—it must do so consonant with the principles of equal protection and it may not erect a wealth barrier absent a justification sufficient to overcome heightened scrutiny.”
• calling the expert’s analysis “arguably a conservative one”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).