FLORIDA

Legislature should abandon court-packing amendment

 
 
DOCKERY
DOCKERY

pbdockery@gmail.com

There are two constitutional amendments that have made their way to the November ballot. Both were proposed by citizen initiative and both enjoy widespread voter popularity.

So far, no legislative-proposed constitutional amendments are set to appear on the ballot. That’s probably for the best, as they didn’t fare well during the 2012 election. Only three of their 11 proposed amendments garnered the 60 percent voter threshold necessary for passage.

One of the eight failed amendments distinguished itself as the most dismal failure. Amendment 5 relating to state courts received a paltry 37 percent of the vote. The amendment was an attempt to grant the Florida Legislature more power, authority and oversight over the judicial branch. Voters sent a strong message to the Legislature not to meddle with the judiciary, a separate but equal branch of state government.

Now, less than two years later, up pops SJR 1188, a legislative attempt to put another judicial issue before the voters. Technically, the constitutional change would require the governor to prospectively fill a vacancy in a judicial office on the Florida Supreme Court or a district court of appeal.

The proponents claim it is necessary to clear up ambiguity in the current system and avoid costly litigation.

Opponents claim it is a blatant attempt to pack the court by an outgoing lame-duck governor and to deny the incoming governor the ability to make the appointments.

At the heart of the issue is the age ceiling for the justices, combined with the timing of their departures. Under current law, justices are required to retire at age 70 but can remain on the bench until the end of their six-year term.

Also under current law, a sitting justice’s term does not expire until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, after the November general election vote. That also happens to be the date a new governor-elect takes office and the outgoing governor departs.

If a governor is reelected, the issue is moot. This proposal makes a change from the current process when a governor is replaced either by choosing not to run or by losing at the polls. In that case, the constitutional change would grant the outgoing governor a long-lasting and powerful parting gift.

This is not a new issue. In 1998, former Gov. Jeb Bush first argued it was the incoming governor that is responsible for the judicial appointments. He eventually resolved the issue by agreeing to a joint appointment with outgoing Gov. Lawton Chiles. Then in 2006, Gov. Bush requested an advisory opinion from the Florida Supreme Court when, on his way out, he wanted to appoint the successor to a District Court of Appeals judge who was ineligible for retention.

In its advisory opinion, the Supreme Court held that the definition for when a vacancy occurs with regard to merit retention judges is clear and unambiguous — a vacancy exists upon the expiration of the term of the judge or justice.

So why is this rearing its head once again? Could it be because three of the seven Supreme Court justices have mandatory retirement dates in January 2019? One other retires in 2017.

Under this change, the outgoing governor would have incredible power to shape the court by selecting a majority of the justices. Three of the justices would be appointed after the new governor had been elected and had taken office.

Something just doesn’t seem right with that.

Unfortunately, the battle is taking place along party lines. It shouldn’t be a partisan issue, particularly since either party could take the governor’s race in what is expected to be a close race this year.

It really should come down to what is better policy.

Even if we were to take the sponsor, Republican state Sen. Tom Lee, at his word that his intention is to provide clarity and avoid legal disputes and costly litigation, a critical question arises. Isn’t he moving in the wrong direction?

Why would we move away from the 2006 Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion?

The constitutional amendment is unnecessary and needlessly divisive. It sends the distinct impression that this is a partisan power grab to stack the court.

It is my hope that Sen. Lee will withdraw the Senate Joint Resolution from further consideration. If it does make it to the Senate floor, it would take a three-fifths majority or 24 votes to pass. Surely there are 17 senators who will step up and do the right thing — vote it down.

If they don’t, I’m sure the voters will give them a remedial lesson in November.

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  • SYRIA

    Turning our backs on atrocities

    For every dissident and defector I’ve encountered, there is a moment when observation begins to feel like complicity — when remaining a bystander involves culpability.

  •  
MCT

    MIDTERM ELECTIONS

    Time for voters to come to their senses

    The boys and girls of Congress are returning from summer camp — er, Capitol Hill — to their real homes where they will 1) raise money and plead to be returned to camp; 2) stress how much they hate the nation’s political polarization; and 3) pledge never to compromise their beliefs.

  • CONGRESS

    Senators earn an ‘A’ for sexual assault bill

    Sen. Marco Rubio doesn’t have much time for Democrats. But he does have two daughters. And so it was that Wednesday morning, he found himself standing in solidarity with a bipartisan group of senators that included Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill as they announced legislation to curb the scourge of sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category