This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Florida Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Florida Legislatures's law was challenged, and was affirmed by Florida Supreme court - [1], but rejected by Federal District court [2]. 2620:10D:C090:380:0:0:1:1155 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelyeditor19, 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? Dominus, pinging you as well as you seemed to acknowledge that it's a bit too long. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]