Talk:2018 Florida Amendment 4

Legal challenges
Florida Legislatures's law was challenged, and was affirmed by  Florida Supreme  court - , but rejected by Federal District court. 2620:10D:C090:380:0:0:1:1155 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Implementation
, thank you for adding the paragraph on the judge's ruling. I'm finding it to be a bit tl;dr. It's difficult to parse. How can we trim it? , pinging you as well as you seemed to acknowledge that it's a bit too long. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I was planning to rewrite that long paragraph as part of some general refurbishment I'm doing to this article and related Felon disenfranchisement in Florida and Robert Lewis Hinkle. But I  am a little puzzled at the way that article and this one are divided up.  I'm not sure yet how to organize them into two coherent articles.  —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I'd like to separate the “implementation” section into two parts: the first two paragraphs discuss whether the amendment is "self-executing", which then leads into the passage of SB7066. Then there would be a second section dealing with SB7066 specifically and with the procedural history of the challenges to it, including the temporary injunction, and the cases that were eventually consolidated as Jones v DeSantis. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would make sense to have the overall section be "implementation", with the discussion on whether it was self-executing and have it lead into the drafting/passing of the legislation. Then a sub-section on "legal challenges" that hits on the different factors of the cases (FL SC ruling, prelim injunction, consolidation and then the "final" ruling). I realized it was long, was having trouble condensing because of how many different issues the ruling dealt with, with all the cases consolidated. I left out the parts unlikely to come back up again, like the sections where he threw out the gender/race animus accusations, while leaving in the categories he created for ex felons and the state defenses as those are the ones that are most likely going to be re-argued very soon in the 11th circuit now that there's a formal motion to appeal. Does that make sense? Lonelyeditor19 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)