Voting Rights For Felons In FL

I don't particularly have a view on this.
   Other than: if the voters voted it away, then it should go away.
   The Post editors write:

For years, other U.S. states have been doing away with disenfranchising former felons, a noxious feature of a blatantly racist past that departs from Western international norms. Just three states — Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — retain rules automatically imposing a lifetime ban on voting by those with felony convictions, and in Virginia, the effect was largely negated by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who restored voting rights to more than 170,000 of them.

By my count that's:

•         Basically an ad populum (an appeal to a trend)
•         An odd accusation of racism / apparent instance of the genetic fallacy
•         Another ad populum / appeal to common practice (it's tres European...)

   It would have helped to have a sentence or two on the allegedly racist origins of the laws. I've long heard the claim that felon disenfranchisement was frequently part of Jim Crow, but I'd appreciate a little help here. Iowa had Jim Crow laws? 'Cause that's news to me. Did the relevant laws in Florida originate in Jim Crow? Even if they did, of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're bad laws--that's why the genetic fallacy is a fallacy. But there's nothing fallacious about using information about origins as grounds for reassessing something. Anything with an origin in Jim Crow ought to be scrutinized. Maybe it'll turn out to pass muster, basically by chance. But it ought to provoke skepticism. The WaPo, now fully progressive, simply yells "racism!." That accusation isn't implausible in this case...but the left cries wolf routinely. It should no longer have the power to make us automatically hop to. Many and perhaps most such accusations now are bogus.
   This specific accusation of racism is odd, because of the way it's stated:

"a noxious feature of a blatantly racist past"

   When one would have expected:

"a noxious and blatantly racist feature of our past"

   I mean, the relevant part of our past is blatantly racist...but that's different than this particular aspect of it being blatantly racist. Maybe it's a slip-up...or maybe it's sleight-of-pen. But the latter would mean that the thing in question is racist; the former wouldn't necessarily.
   Anyway, there a tons of arguments about felon disenfranchisement, and I have only a passing familiarity with a few of them. I'm not qualified to speak on them. And, again: if the voters said to ditch it, FL should ditch it. I'm just complaining about the Post's specific argument.