The ACLU of Florida Legislative Scorecard evaluates votes on key legislation affecting civil rights and civil liberties. We score how frequently your legislator’s votes align with ACLU positions and values.
Bill Summaries
ANTI-REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
Requiring Minors to Seek Parental Consent for Reproductive Health Care SB 1774/HB 1335 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill would have given parents veto power over a minor’s decision to terminate her own pregnancy. The bill’s stringent parental consent requirement, coupled with the onerous judicial waiver process, would ultimately harm minors, as it would result in more minors attempting to self-inflict an abortion or seeking an unsafe and unregulated abortion procedure from non-medical professionals. Current Florida law already requires parental notification.
Status: Passed 1 Senate Committee and passed the House; “Yes” in the scorecard indicates voted in favor or sponsors/cosponsors of the bill.
6-week Ban on Abortion - SB 1792/HB 235 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This unconstitutional bill would have banned abortions after six weeks.
Status: No votes taken; “Yes” in the scorecard indicates sponsors/cosponsors of the bill.
*The House and Senate Reproductive Scorecard is an aggregate score. Click the individual reproductive charts above for specific information about each vote count.
LGBTQ RIGHTS
Prohibiting LGBTQ Discrimination - SB 430/HB 485 (2019)
ACLU Position: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
Status: Never received a hearing, thus no votes taken; “Yes” in the scorecard indicates sponsors/cosponsors of the bill.
ANTI-IMMIGRATION
Banning Sanctuary Policies; Requiring ICE Enforcement - SB 168/HB 527 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill forces local law enforcement to implement ICE detainer requests and to detain individuals without a judicial determination of probable cause; prohibits state and local entities from exercising their own judgment and discretion to utilize local resources to enhance community safety; undermines trust in local law enforcement and inhibits their ability to work successfully in the communities they serve; results in increased family separation and racial and ethnic profiling.
Status: Bill passed and became law; 22 yeas / 18 nays
RESTRICTING PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY
Gutting Citizen Initiative Petition Process for Amending Florida's Constitution - HB 5 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill undermines democracy and thwarts the will of the people by making it significantly more difficult for Floridians to gather citizen initiative petitions and have their issues be represented on the ballot and voted on by the public.
Status: Passed Senate and House; signed into law
BLURRING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
Diverting Taxpayer/Public School Dollars to Private Religious Schools - SB 7070 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill diverts taxpayer dollars from Florida’s public schools and funds private religious schools with taxpayer money.
Status: Passed Senate and House; signed into law
EXACERBATING SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE
Arming Teachers and Exacerbating School Policing - SB 7030 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill allows for arming teachers, exacerbates the school-to-prison pipeline, and creates a troubling database that threatens student privacy rights.
Status: Passed Senate and House; signed into law
VOTER SUPPRESSION
Undermining Amendment 4 and Disenfranchising Voters - SB 7066 (2019)
ACLU Position: NO/OPPOSE
This bill thwarts the will of the people who passed Amendment 4 and significantly restricts voter restoration.
Status: Passed Senate and House; signed into law
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
Senate Version of the Florida First Step Act That Contained Significant Reforms - SB 642 (2019)
ACLU Position: YES/SUPPORT
The Senate Version of the Florida First Step Act (SB 642) would have meaningfully reformed our criminal justice system, reduced prison populations, and addressed racial disparities inherent in our broken system. Reforms contained within the bill included, but were not limited to: adjusting the cap on gain time from 85% to 65%, increasing the felony theft threshold to $1500; requiring racial impact statements, and making criminal justice reforms retroactive.
Note: The watered-down House Version of the Florida First Step Act (HB 7125) was not included in the scorecard because the ACLU fought hard to pass meaningful comprehensive criminal justice reform measures that would reduce incarceration and address racial disparities, and such reforms were rejected by the House and excluded from HB 7125.
Status: Passed 3 Senate Committees
Increasing Felony Threshold - SB 406/HB 589 (2019)
ACLU Position: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have increased the felony theft threshold from $300 to $1500
Status: Passed 2 Senate Committees; Passed 3 House Committees
Occupational Licensing - SB 334/HB 397
ACLU Postition: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have prevented the denial of an occupational license based on prior criminal history record under certain circumstances.
Status: Passed 2 Senate Committees; Not heard in the House
Ending the suspension of driver’s licenses for inability to pay fines and fees and other non-driving offenses - SB 734/HB 1013 (2019)
ACLU Postition: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have ended Florida’s unjust practice of suspending driver licenses for non-driving related offenses and failure to pay court fees and fines.
Status: Not heard in committee
Ending the practice of charging youth as adults without any judicial involvement - SB 876/HB 575/HB 1293 (2019
ACLU Postition: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have allowed for a due process hearing to determine if a child should be tried as an adult and ended the mandatory practice of charging youth as adults for certain offenses.
Status: Passed 2 Senate Committees; Passed 1 House Committee
Ban the Box - SB 394/HB 667 (2019)
ACLU Postition: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have limited the circumstances under which an employer could inquire into a person’s criminal history record.
Status: Never received a hearing, thus no votes taken; “Yes” in the scorecard indicates sponsors/cosponsors of the bill.
Adjusting the Cap on Gain Time - HB 1001 (2019)
ACLU Postition: YES/SUPPORT
This bill would have incentivized rehabilitation and reduced the prison population by adjusting the cap on gain time from 85% to 65%.
Status: Never received a hearing, thus no votes taken; “Yes” in the scorecard indicates sponsor of the bill.
*The House and Senate Criminal Justice Scorecard is an aggregate score. Click the individual criminal justice charts above for specific information about each vote count.
florida senators scorecards
Click on a representative’s name below to view their record on recent civil rights and civil liberties issues.
florida Representatives scorecards
Click on a representative’s name below to view their record on recent civil rights and civil liberties issues.
Methodology
Purpose:
This legislative scorecard is intended to be used as a resource to assist voters in working with their elected officials and to educate the public on whether their legislators have voted in favor or against various bills impacting civil rights and liberties. It is not an endorsement of a candidate in a partisan election or designed to advance any one legislator or candidate over another. The ACLU is non-partisan and does not endorse or financially support any candidate for elected office.
Our hope is that this scorecard will help you better understand your legislator’s civil rights and civil liberties voting record.
Method:
The legislative scorecard consists of eight priority issues/bills for the House and Senate that were core issues to the ACLU of Florida’s lobbying work during the 2019 legislative sessions in Tallahassee. All ACLU positions on the specific issues in this scorecard were made clear to legislators either through written or oral testimony, lobbying efforts, or through the media. Note that not all legislators had the opportunity to vote on each bill, and that the percentage reflects the legislator’s consistency with ACLU positions on the bills the legislator had the opportunity to vote on. Some legislators, depending on their committee assignments, may have had the opportunity to vote on several of our priority bills. For other legislators, they may only have had the opportunity to vote on a few of our issues. Where feasible, the scorecard includes votes taken in regular session of the House or Senate (Floor votes) on the bills. Where the bills were heard only in committees, the committee votes are reflected in the scorecard.
Scoring:
The percentage score reflects the number of identified civil liberties bills where the legislator voted consistent with the ACLU position (or sponsored/cosponsored a bill consistent with the ACLU position) as compared to the total number of ACLU priority bills in the scorecard that the legislator voted on. For example, if the legislator only had the opportunity to vote on four (4) ACLU priority bills and voted consistent with the ACLU on two (2) of these bills, the percentage score would be calculated as 50%. If the legislator had the opportunity to vote on five (5) of our priority bills and voted consistently with the ACLU’s position on each, the percentage score would be 100%.
The bills identified in the scorecard, where feasible, reflect the ACLU’s priority legislative areas – criminal justice reform, immigration, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, participatory democracy, and separation of church and state. The scorecard does not contain all bills filed during the legislative session that fall within ACLU’s priority legislative areas; rather, the scorecard identifies a priority bill or bills in each priority issue area. As there were several distinct criminal justice reform bills that we supported, we combined the bills into one aggregate issue area of “criminal justice reform” in order to more fully capture the support for meaningful criminal justice reform efforts. We did not include reforms that would not reduce Florida’s prison population or address racial disparities inherent in our system. We similarly created an aggregate category of reproductive rights in order to be more inclusive of support/opposition on this issue.
The columns and calculated percentages reflect bill sponsorship/co-sponsorship, as well as the actual vote the legislator took in floor or committee votes. A “Yes” indicates that the legislator either sponsored/co-sponsored the bill or voted “Yes” in favor it. A “No” indicates that the legislator voted “No” on the bill. Empty cells indicate the legislator did not vote on or sponsor/cosponsor the bill and are not calculated in the scored percentage.