to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The full text of the constitutional amendment was available to voters in a booklet provided by the Florida Division of Elections. A 60 percent vote in favor was required for approval. Results Implementation The amendment went into effect on January 8, 2019, making an estimated 1.4 million people with felony convictions eligible to register to vote. Some proponents claim that Amendment 4 was written as not to require implementation by the Florida Legislature. The Florida Division of Elections stopped running applicants through the criminal database in December. DeSantis, who defeated Gillum in the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election, stated his belief that the legislature must pass a law to allow the Division of Elections to verify the eligibility of each applicant. Bill Galvano, the president of the Florida Senate, is of the opinion that it is "self-executing." In mid-2019, Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law. Originating in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, it required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights". According to one commentator, this legislation "subverts" Amendment 4. On October 18, 2019, Judge Robert Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a limited stay but only as far as the law applied to the plaintiffs themselves. DeSantis appealed the decision of the District court to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 16, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional. The Court of Appeals declined to block the District Court's decision. On May 24, 2020, US District Court Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that parts of the law were constitutional and parts were unconstitutional. He ordered the state to take various actions. He ruled that the Florida law requiring felons to pay legal fees, fines, and restitution to their victims as part of their sentences before regaining the vote is unconstitutional but only for those unable to pay the amounts. The law could continue to be applied to those with the means to pay their fines/fees and restitution. However, defining those unable to pay, the ruling broadly creates two categories: those who were appointed an attorney because they could not afford one and anyone whose financial obligations were converted to civil liens. The broadness of these categories would de