Florida reformed and scaled back probation supervision more than three years ago. Now, polling shows broad support for Congress tackling probation updates nationwide.

New polling commissioned by the REFORM Alliance, a national group supporting changes to probation and parole, found nearly 79% of Americans support proposals to change supervision as proposed in a bipartisan bill championed by U.S. Rep. Laurel Lee.

The survey, conducted by Fabrizio Ward, showed strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents backing reform.

It’s a result that shocked even the group’s leadership, as most Americans supported changing the process without hearing any messaging.

“I have to say, I was absolutely shocked that we saw as high support right out the gate, without even linking this to any of the authors or any of the incredible influencers who have stepped up and said that they endorsed the bill,” said Jessica Jackson, CEO of the REFORM Alliance.

“We saw right away that 79% of the Trump voters, 80% of the (Kamala) Harris voters said they want to see this happen. They want to see this public safety reform signed into law.”

The pollsters, who also have worked with President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, stressed the conservative support from swing House districts Trump carried in 2024 by less than 5 percentage points, or that went to Trump despite electing Democrats to Congress.

“Reform of the supervised release system has a clear political benefit for Republicans in their fight to keep control of Congress,” pollsters Anthony Fabrizio and Bob Ward wrote in a memo. “Both the Trump base and the Swing voters who will determine the outcomes in the most competitive House districts see the benefits of making it easier for the recently incarcerated to get back into the workforce, paying taxes and contributing to society.”

That speaks to messaging likely to be embraced by Lee, a swing district Republican.

But the poll also shows voters across the political spectrum back changes. Her bill would grant more judicial discretion in requirements for supervision during probation, allow for an early end to probation for good conduct and allow treatment instead of probation for low-level drug possession.

Jackson said that’s to be expected when looking at data on the number of people detrimentally impacted by the probation system as it exists today.

“Seven out of 10 of the Democrats, or Harris voters, said that they had a loved one. You had eight out of 10 of the Trump supporters who said they had a loved one or themselves had been impacted,” Jackson noted. “I think it’s because it’s become such a widespread issue that people know someone personally, and of course, nothing puts this more on your radar than actually knowing somebody who’s been impacted.”

Various elements of the bill polled at different support levels, but all were popular.

Asked about investing in programs that increase the chances that those on parole will succeed in reentry into society, such as housing assistance, education and job training, addiction treatment, and mental health support, 81% of Trump voters and 84% of swing voters support the bill.

By comparison, giving Judges discretion on minor drug possession violations to consider treatment or rehabilitation instead of mandatory reimprisonment had support from 68% of Trump voters and 72% from swing voters, lower levels of support but strong majorities with even the least popular part of the bill.

“A member of Congress supporting the Safer Supervision Act would gain at the polls, and most voters want President Trump to issue an executive order to accomplish the policies of the Safer Supervision Act,” the polling memo states.

Jackson’s group is prepared to tell personal stories even to those who don’t already know someone impacted by probation restraints. Her group also worked on the First Step Act signed in Trump’s first term, and she recounts how one of the first recipients, after Trump commuted her sentence on a crack cocaine conviction, still struggled to reintegrate in 2018. It wasn’t because she fell into old habits, but because of impossible constraints imposed by the justice system.

That included requirements for visits with a parole officer located 45 minutes away, required random drug tests, an expectation she retain her job at Walmart, all while living in her daughter’s house without her own care and after returning to society after a decade in prison with no ability to build up savings.

“There’s just so much stupid that is holding people back, so much red tape that isn’t actually helping them succeed,” Jackson said.

It’s why even voters who support taking a hard line on crime see benefits in making a return to society easier and more efficient.

“People see this as a tough on crime bill,” Jackson said.

“This is a bill that would return federal supervision to its original intent, which is officers who have people on their docket who they think might be at high risk of committing another crime need the resources to be able to properly supervise them. The way that things are structured right now, you’ve got officers managing 100-plus cases. That means they can’t properly supervise anyone — not those who need their help, not those who pose risks.”

A new poll reveals what messaging could be used as Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan gets ready to run for four more years in office.

But the pollster purports to be far away from Duval.

JacksonvilleStudies.com lists its address at a strip mall with a UPS store in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of northwest Washington, D.C., just blocks from Malcolm X Park.

Its phone number isn’t accepting inbound calls, and Deegan herself isn’t talking about the survey as of Thursday morning. So we don’t know if her “Duval for All” political committee is paying for the effort, or if the money is coming from elsewhere.

No disclaimer language was on the text message soliciting responses or the poll itself. We called “John,” whose phone in Astor, Florida, sent out the text message. But he didn’t answer and we were routed to what was called a “campaign voicemail.” Our call hasn’t been returned at this point.

The poll tests Deegan head-to-head against various potential Republican candidates, including House Speaker Pro Tempore Wyman Duggan, Duval County Elections Supervisor Jerry Holland and Jacksonville City Councilman Rory Diamond.

None of them have formally declared a run, though we have seen polling conducted on Holland’s behalf.

While it’s unclear who runs against Deegan in 2027, what is clear is those candidates will have to counter various positive messages, including some auditioned in this phone poll.

People responding to the poll are asked if they think the Jacksonville Journey Forward initiative is keeping them safer and improving lives, as well as whether Deegan is keeping promises, making things easier for small businesses, supporting first responders, and was using her “negotiating skills” in completing negotiations with the NFL Jaguars for stadium improvements.

Additionally, they are asked if they know Jacksonville has the lowest property taxes of any major city in the state, if she has improved downtown, if she has made progress on “affordable housing” and health insurance coverage, and if she is “approachable.”

The poll does not ask about a hologram of Deegan at the Jacksonville International Airport, a much-criticized airport greeting device that critics say shows her ego and self-promotion, suggesting the surveyors don’t believe this issue matters to voters despite Republican tubthumping.

The apparently pro-Deegan poll comes after the Tyson Group’s survey earlier this year showed Jacksonville voters would prefer a generic Republican to a generic Democrat in a ballot test stripped of meaningful markers like name recognition and the power of incumbency.

No serious candidate has filed to run against Deegan yet, and she has yet to open a campaign account.

But this poll shows that even this sleepy campaign cycle is about to stop hitting the snooze button and get going at last.

A pending ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 1965 Voting Rights Act could trigger the Florida Legislature to conduct a mid-decade congressional redistricting effort, but it won’t require them to do so.

That was the opinion of Tallahassee election attorney Andy Bardos, who spoke Wednesday before a Florida House select committee charged with considering congressional redistricting, the second “educational and informative meeting” in the past week that did not allow public comment.

Denying that redistricting would have anything to do with partisan advantage, Gov. Ron DeSantis has maintained that Florida will be “forced to” redistrict once the high court rules in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, which could redefine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or declare it unconstitutional. The Justices have twice heard the case and are expected to rule sometime before next July.

“In terms of binding effect, it has binding effect on Louisiana,” Bardos told lawmakers. “Whether Florida chooses after Callais to keep its maps in place, await either the next cycle, or await litigation, or redraw its districts, that will be a judgment call made when we see the Callais decision.”

Bardos and committee Chair Mike Redondo, a Miami Republican, confirmed during the hearing that if the Legislature does in fact redo the congressional map sometime next year, it would do so based on U.S. census and voter information data they used previously when it did the decennial redistricting in 2022.

Court rulings

What has changed since then is the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in July upholding the state’s 2022 congressional map, which had been legally challenged by voting rights groups such as Black Voters Matter after it was approved by the Legislature.

Those groups argued the map had violated the 2010 Fair Districts amendments when it redrew Florida’s 5th Congressional District. That seat stretched for more than 200 miles along the Florida-Georgia border to encompass Black populations in Florida’s old plantation belt from Gadsden to Duval counties.

One of those protections in the Fair Districts amendments prohibits lawmakers from drawing districts that “diminish (racial and language minorities’) ability to elect representatives of their choice.” The plaintiffs had argued that eliminating a district in which Black voters were electing their preferred candidate violated that provision.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the old District 5 seat was likely an illegal race-based gerrymander that failed to meet the equal-protection standards under the U.S. Constitution. “In the process of deciding that, the court articulated legal principles that had never before been set forth by a court in that way,” Bardos said.

The Fair District amendments also state that “no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent,” which seemingly would contradict the stated goal of President Donald Trump, who said explicitly in July that he wanted Texas to create more House seats favorable to his party for the 2026 Midterm Elections. DeSantis said publicly weeks later that he thought Florida should do so, as well.

Bardos went on to tell Rep. Kevin Chambliss, a Homestead Democrat, that the Florida Supreme Court ruling that the 2022 congressional map was constitutional “raises questions now about how does this articulation of additional principles effect other parts of the state which the court wasn’t focused on.”

This was the last meeting scheduled by the select committee until the 2026 Legislative Session begins on Jan. 13. However, both DeSantis and Senate President Ben Albritton have said they would prefer the Legislature wait to address the issue again in a Special Session after the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the Louisiana v. Callais case — which, as Bardos said Wednesday, might not be for another six months.

No public comment allowed

Opponents of the proposed redistricting expressed outrage that the public wasn’t given time to speak during the hearing.

“The people of Florida deserve better than a rush job behind closed doors,” said Jessica Lowe-Minor, President of the League of Women Voters of Florida. “There’s no compelling reason to do redistricting at all right now, and it certainly shouldn’t be done when the public doesn’t have sufficient opportunities to engage and provide input.”

“When lawmakers show up in Tallahassee, they should be fighting for the hardworking people who sent them there,” added Amina Spahić, political director with Florida For All. “But, instead, we see them catering to the powerful interests and mega-donors who bankroll their campaigns.”

Noting that some of his constituents drove up from South Florida before learning that they would not be able to speak during Wednesday’s hearing, Chambliss asked Redondo if he could provide notice earlier if he planned to disallow public comment during future committee meetings.

Redondo responded that both hearings held so far involved only presentations, which he said typically do not allow for public comment. “When there’s some sort of legislative action being considered, that’s typically when we see public comment in normal meetings. But we’ll certainly try to notice the meetings as reasonably early as possible,” he said.

Republicans hold a 20-8 lead over Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation. Republican National Committee Chair and Sarasota Sen. Joe Gruters reposted an analysis of the situation around the country on Tuesday.

That analysis predicts that Florida Republicans would gain five seats if and when they go through with redistricting and voters follow through as the GOP expects them to in November 2026.

___

Reporting by Mitch Perry. Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: [email protected].