Category: Florida

A seemingly incongruous pairing–the voting rights of Florida ex-felons and the piecemeal progress on normalized relations with Cuba–actually have something very relevant in common. It’s called enlightened self-interest.

While it brings out the best in us, simply doing what’s right–as in idealistic or principled–is sometimes a bonus in a doing-what’s-pragmatically-best-for-us scenario.

Take the restoration of voting rights for (most non-violent) ex-felons. It’s hardly automatic. Or humane. Thanks to Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi–and a bureaucratic maze that has become a de facto dead end–rights restoration is now a virtual oxymoron. As a result, Florida is now home to nearly 1.5 million disenfranchised ex-felons. And counting.

It’s arguably not fair to not help former inmates rebuild their lives after having served their state-mandated sentences without incident. But there’s much more to it.

It also flat-out helps society when the no-longer incarcerated are allowed to fully rejoin society. That’s because the recidivism rate among disenfranchised former felons is significantly higher than those who have had basic rights restored. As in under former Gov. Charlie Crist or in most other states. In other words, society–all of us never-were-felons-in-the-first-place sorts–is a helluva lot safer when fewer of its ex-felons are disenfranchised.

It might make an effective, tough-on-crime-and-criminals sound bite, but the reality is that this is so much more than an ex-felon issue. And it’s more than just a feel-good, generous gesture. This is about all of us feeling safer when ex-felons–and most of them do get out–are back in our midst. It’s about us.

As for the parallel with Cuba, we all know that normalized relations with a neighbor country– revolution, tragedy and family feuds notwithstanding–has humanitarian aspects that range from familial visitations to limiting the number of Cubans who die at sea because of the wet-foot, dry-foot immigration loophole. And improved geo-political relations with the rest of our Hemisphere is hardly incidental.

But from a narrow, purely self-serving perspective, unfettered relations–including a trade-promoting, terminated economic embargo–would benefit no state more than Florida, no city more than Tampa and no port more than Port Tampa Bay. Rick Scott, Marco Rubio and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen might not be impressed, but it matters to those whose ideology is common sense.

Beyond that, environmental issues–including storm tracking, coral reef preservation and oil-spill prevention–and drug-running interdictions are other bottom-line priorities that should resonate for obvious reasons. We directly benefit. First priority is what’s best for us.

If anyone is going to take down Marco Rubio in the upcoming Senate race, it will be U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy. But the 33-year-old, former Republican who ousted Allen West in 2012 has to get by caustic, controversial Rep. Alan Grayson first.

The two were scheduled to debate later this month. Murphy has unilaterally canceled it–citing allegations that Grayson abused his ex-wife. He says constituents have been telling him he can’t give Grayson a “platform to legitimize his campaign.”

That’s lame. If Murphy wants to out Grayson for who he is, take him on. For someone with a padded, pre-congressional resume, this is a time for Murphy to remind Floridians that he is an effective Sunshine State advocate–not just the beneficiary of a doting, wealthy father. It’s also an opportunity to get in some much-needed practice for this fall’s Rubio debates.

A key reason that Sen. Marco Rubio, humiliated by Donald Trump in the Florida primary a few months ago, is back in the Senate race: Patrick Murphy’s candidacy has been in unsuccessful, crisis-management mode for a couple of months.

Rather than permitting another unnecessary bear hunt, Florida would be better served to thin the NRA herd.

While it’s continuously noted by those outside of Tallahassee that driving while texting should be a primary, not a secondary, offense, we were recently reminded by a fatal boating accident that we also remain legislatively negligent on the water for a different reason. Given that Florida leads the nation in vessel registration as well as boating accidents, how much sense does it make that the state doesn’t require boating licenses?

Gov. Rick Scott’s recent recruiting sortie to Democratic California may ultimately result in a relocation or two but for now, it’s mainly producing bad poaching publicity. Gov. Jerry Brown labeled it–and the accompanying Enterprise Florida radio ads criticizing higher minimum wages–a “silly political stunt.” Other criticism, such as “full-blown stalker,” was much more biting. And, yes, unconscionable climate-change ignorance and “health care fraud” were referenced. Scotts owns it.

And then there’s always this: What does it say about your business acumen when you defend your opposition to lifting the trade embargo with Cuba? Imagine, trumpeting a Cold War era stance that self-limits a nearby, viable market–one that would benefit Florida more than any other state. Impressive.

Call it a “Flori-duh” update. No, the last Legislative session couldn’t be bothered to move on Medicaid expansion or repeal stand your ground or make texting while driving a primary offense. But it did manage to amend and reaffirm the 4-year-old ban on state investment in companies that have operations in Cuba.

It was an add-on to a bill that prohibits state agencies from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. Any means will do when it comes to winning Cold War points with the usual suspects.

BTW, as Senate President Joe Negron–who sponsored the legislation–has pointed out, it’s probably “unenforceable.” Something to do with it being unconstitutional. But that’s only the opinion of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Call it another day at the Tallahassee office.

OK, so we still have a Florida law that bans state investment in companies with operations in Cuba and, no, we still don’t accept Medicaid expansion money. But there is this: We no longer have a law against cohabitation. Seriously, the ban on unmarried couples living together–that dated back to 1868–is no more. Gov. Rick Scott just signed off on it.

Why did it take so long? Maybe it was the law’s wording. Who would defend those who wanted to “lewdly and lasciviously associate”?

Miami Beach Democratic Mayor Philip Levine was in Cuba recently and was part of the crowd–as was St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman–when the Rays played the Cuban National Team. The outing was fortuitous for Levine. His plans had been made months in advance of the presidential-visit/baseball game announcements. But his trip also made history. It was the first official visit to Cuba by an elected official from Miami-Dade County since before the revolution.

Levine led a small entourage (that included Tufts University graduate students), toured Havana, dropped by the American Embassy and met with Cardinal Jaime Ortega and Gustavo Machin of the Cuban Foreign Relations Ministry. A major priority on his agenda: Helping to recruit a Cuban consulate to Miami Beach. Sheer proximity to so many South Florida Cubans keeps MB in the hunt.

And one other agenda detail. This proactive initiative will certainly come up if he decides to proceed with rumored plans for higher elected office.

Back to Estadio Latinomericano. Imagine this: Two Democratic mayors of prominent Florida cities with Cuban aspirations visit the island and check out a certain baseball exhibition involving a Tampa Bay team–and neither of them is from Tampa, Havana’s American soul mate.

The Florida Supreme Court has spoken, albeit in divided, notably frank, 4-3 fashion. That disingenuous “Consumers for Smart Solar,” utility-backed Amendment can be placed on the November ballot.

There’s a reason it’s supported by utilities–and not by renewable energy proponents. It does nothing for consumer choice or competitive pricing.

Too bad there’s no room for the Court’s official dissent–more like a warning–which was written by Justice Barbara Pariente. In brief, “Let the pro-solar energy consumers beware. Masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative, this proposed constitutional amendment, supported by some of Florida’s major investor-owned, electric utility companies, actually seeks to constitutionalize the status quo. The ballot title is … misleading by its focus on “Solar Energy Choice,’ when no real choice exists for those who favor expansion of solar energy.”