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
In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.
He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.
They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in.
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy.
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.