On Sunday a federal judge in Florida ruled that the state law restricting felons from voting in case they have unpaid court fees or other fines was unconstitutional in nature.

According to the court documents obtained by the Campaign Legal Center, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, appointed by President Clinton, argued that the state’s requirement was essentially equivalent to a poll tax targeting Floridians who were previously incarcerated.

“The Twenty-Fourth Amendment precludes Florida from conditioning voting in federal elections on payment of these fees and costs,” Hinkle wrote. “And because the Supreme Court has held, in effect, that what the Twenty-Fourth Amendment prescribes for federal elections, the Equal Protection Clause requires for state elections, Florida also cannot condition voting in state elections on payment of these fees and costs.”

However, Judge Hinkle’s order does not, side with plaintiffs who argued that Florida’s officials implemented the law with racial bias in mind regarding African Americans. Critics of restrictions on voting rights for felons frequently point out that African Americans in particular are incarcerated at a significantly higher rate than white Americans.

“On balance, I find that SB7066 was not motivated by race,” wrote Hinkle.

Republicans in State pushed the law through establishing restrictions on voting rights for felons last April, while the Democrats in the state argued that at the time that the law would be found unconstitutional. Sunday’s ruling establishes a similar ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor in February in a federal appeals court.

“They couldn’t help themselves in Tallahassee. The Legislature decided to take this [amendment] meant to help people cast their vote and put a poll tax on top of it,” said Representative Ted Deutch at the time.

Experts fully expect that this ruling, if it is allowed to stand as is, might have an effect on Florida’s swing-state status.