Herald endorsement: Two Florida Supreme court justices deserve a ‘no’ on retention vote | Opinion

By the Miami Herald Editorial Board

Updated November 2, 2024 11:41 AM

Florida Supreme Court Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso are up for a retention vote.

Editorial Board’s General Election Endorsements

In advance of the upcoming general elections on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024, the Editorial Board interviewed and researched candidates to better understand their views on various issues and how their policies will affect their constituents. The goal is to give voters a better idea of who’s the best candidate for each race.

Expand All

Usually, retention votes for Florida Supreme Court justices are routine matters. Not this year.

Up for retention on the Nov. 5 general election ballot are Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso, two appointees of Gov. Ron DeSantis. The justices’ efforts to stop voters from having their say on two important ballot issues — recreational marijuana and abortion rights — should earn them a resounding “no” vote from the people of Florida.

Florida has never failed to retain a Supreme Court justice. This should be the time.

Francis and Sasso were the only two justices who in April voted against allowing the recreational marijuana constitutional amendment on the ballot.

The state Supreme Court has a very limited and technical role when it comes constitutional amendments. The justices are supposed to review the wording to make sure that it addresses a single subject, is clear and is constitutional. That’s it. The review is not supposed to be an excuse to get rid of amendments that the justices may not like.

In that instance, the other five justices — on a very conservative court, remember — found that Amendment 3 met the requirements of the court’s limited review.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office opposed the amendment saying that it would be misleading to voters and was not limited to a single subject because it would both decriminalize and commercialize recreational marijuana. Francis and Sasso were the only two who bought into that thinnest of arguments. Fortunately, the majority of the justices disagreed and trusted the people to make the decision in November.

And then there was their far more egregious vote on the proposed abortion amendment.

Again, Francis and Sasso voted to keep Amendment 4 off the ballot. It was a 4-3 vote, with Francis and Sasso joining Justice Jamie Grosshans in opposing it.

The majority of justices voted that the amendment met the usual standards and wasn’t misleading, concluding the ballot summary was “plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed amendment.” They even said that anyone who tried to argue that the language was unclear or misleading was taking “a flight from reality.”

And yet Sasso called the amendment “overwhelmingly vague and ambiguous,” centering much of her criticism on the term “healthcare provider.” And she added that it was “highly unlikely that voters will understand the true ramifications of this amendment.”

If there is anything voters in this state understand, it is that the abortion amendment will reestablish the same rights women in Florida had before Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Both justices have been on the court for a couple of years or less. Francis’ appointment was marred by DeSantis’ ill-judged effort to get her onto the court before she had even the bare minimum of experience: 10 years in the Florida Bar. Her first nomination was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court — where she now serves — for that reason. DeSantis persisted. Francis, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, became a justice on the second try, in 2022.

During the Republican presidential debate in Miami in November 2023, DeSantis, who was then running for the GOP nomination, answered a question on the path forward for Republicans on abortion by noting that he had appointed Francis, whose mother, he said, had been counseled not to have her baby because she was poor. Was that his motivation to get her onto the court?

Voters will get the chance to have their say on this critical issue and the marijuana amendment on the November ballot, but that’s not thanks to Francis and Sasso.

If Floridians do the unexpected and vote against retaining these justices, there’s no guarantee the state will wind up with someone better. DeSantis gets to choose again, and no doubt he’ll choose more conservatives. That’s fine. What we want are justices — who serve six-year terms and often stay on the court for decades — who are better qualified and have the backbone to uphold the democratic process.

The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a NO vote on the retention of Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso.

BEHIND THE STORY

Who decides the political endorsements?

In advance of local and state elections, Miami Herald Editorial Board members interview political candidates, as well as advocates and opponents of ballot measures. The Editorial Board is composed of experienced opinion journalists and is independent of the Herald’s newsroom. Members of the Miami Herald Editorial Board are: Amy Driscoll, editorial page editor; and editorial writers Isadora Rangel and Mary Anna Mancuso. Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.

What does the endorsement process look like?

The Miami Herald Editorial Board interviews political candidates to better understand their views on public policy and how their policies will affect their constituents. Board members do additional reporting and research to learn as much as possible about the candidates before making an endorsement. The Editorial Board then convenes to discuss the candidates in each race. Board members seek to reach a consensus on the endorsements, but not every decision is unanimous. Candidates who decline to be interviewed will not receive an endorsement.

Is the Editorial Board partisan?

No. In making endorsements, members of the Editorial Board consider which candidates are better prepared to represent their constituents — not whether they agree with our editorial stances or belong to a particular political party. We evaluate candidates’ relevant experience, readiness for office, depth of knowledge of key issues and understanding of public policy. We’re seeking candidates who are thoughtful and who offer more than just party-line talking points.

This story was originally published October 9, 2024 at 6:18 PM.