The 11th circuit said the reason this was not a poll tax was because the fines were part of a felon's punishment. There's no rule against paying off someone else's fines, even if it incidentally means they can now vote.
And it's not an incentive to vote because the felon doesn't have to make any promises to get the fine paid.
Indeed there are some people in the world who might see millions of dollars being paid into court systems and victim's funds from out of state as a good thing.
The presumption of regularity is hard to get past, but it's difficult to imagine an AG caring about these payments if the goal were not to deter voting.
This would be like if polling locations were only reachable by helicopter, and you prosecuted people for providing helicopter rides.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you chase someone with your car, that is aggravated assault. And you cannot be justified doing something once you commit a felony. You can't shoot an armed homeowner, for instance, if he tries to stop you from burglarizing his house.
Now let's say it turns out that the armed homeowner is a murderer.
That shit isn't relevant, because no set of facts about his past make it ok to break into his house and shoot him.
The first thing to note about Trump's WSJ lawsuit is that he filed it federally in Florida.
In almost every jurisdiction, filing a lawsuit federally helps you avoid the anti-SLAPP statute.
But not in Florida.
So, for instance, when Dan Bongino filed a lawsuit against the Daily Beast for saying he was fired, the Daily Beast filed an anti-SLAPP motion, even though it was in federal court.
And prevailed, because the suit was without merit.