By Tom Flanigan
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wfsu/local-wfsu-966869.mp3
Tallahassee, FL – One of Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon's top goals for the 2011 Legislative Session was essentially derailed in the State Senate on Monday. Tom Flanigan reports the Senate vote will keep the Florida Supreme Court pretty much the way it is now; at least for the coming year.
The proposed constitutional amendment, as explained by Republican Representative Eric Eisnaugle of Orlando, was short and to the point.
"The bill revises Article Five to provide to provide for a specialized court, meaningful participation in rule-making by the legislature and a more stable funding source for the court system. That is the bill."
The nuts and bolts of the bill were a bit more complex. Under its provisions, the Florida Supreme Court would be split into two divisions; one for criminal cases and one for civil cases. Three new justices would be named by the governor to staff the new civil division. The most experienced jurists would go to the criminal side of the court. On top of that, the Florida Bar would no longer have a seat on the commission that makes judicial candidate recommendations to the governor. The Florida Legislature would have become actively involved in court rule making. And the entire court would move from its historic home just west of the State Capitol to the so-called "Taj Mahal" court building miles from downtown Tallahassee. The court issue had been a major priority for House Speaker Cannon throughout the session. He said a larger, more specialized court was needed to handle a growing backlog of cases. House critics, like Miami Beach Democrat Richard Steinberg, suspected other reasons.
"People are concerned this is not about the courts; that this is about redistricting this is about stacking the court for redistricting. Let's send a clear message to Floridians; let's send a message that this is not about redistricting."
Last year, Florida voters approved a pair of constitutional amendments that will substantially change the state's voting district map. Republicans, which now constitute the majority in both legislative chambers, have not been kindly disposed towards those amendments. Also, the current high court has knocked down several amendments the legislature wanted to put on the ballot in recent years. Opponents of the court-change amendment, including former Florida U-S senator and governor Bob Graham, speculated the creation of a court more friendly to lawmakers might be at least part of what was going on.
"If the legislature is upset that the people adopted constitutional amendments on those two and many other areas, the approach the legislature ought to take, in my opinion, is to place another constitutional amendment on the ballot and let the people decide, did they make a mistake in their earlier action."
But the House passed the amendment bill and this week it was the Senate's turn to take up the matter. The sponsor there, Republican Ellyn Bogdanoff of Fort Lauderdale rolled out a measure considerably different from the House version.
"Thank you, Mr. President. This is the amended version of the courts bill. For everybody that's here, I think the issue of concern on the floor was the bifurcation of the Supreme Court. That has been removed. The expanded discretionary jurisdiction has been removed and the court funding has been removed."
If those items were now out, Senator Bogdanoff said a few of the original bill aspects remained.
"The rulemaking by simple majority with a policy statement so that the court can re-write the rule, the confirmation of the Senate and if it's not confirmed within 90 days they are automatically appointed and the third thing is that the House of Representatives has an opportunity to review the J.Q.C. complaints to decide whether or not they want to move forward with impeachment and that is the basis of the bill."
Even in its somewhat watered-down form, Melbourne Republican Senator Thad Altman still thought the bill only made good sense.
"I believe the courts have kind of slipped away from the people of this state. And I think the efficiencies will make them more responsive. I think the ability to access the courts to remedy differences will be better off if we have this body to empower the courts."
Senator Chris Smith, Democrat of Oakland Park still had a concern.
"But still I will caution this body in treading into the other branch of government. I think we have a great system of separation of powers and I think the Supreme Court and the judicial branch has done a good job of staying in their lanes and I would hope that we would try and stay in our lanes a little more."
Although Smith's fellow Democrat, Senator Maria Lorts Sachs of Delray, seemed to capture the Senate consensus.
"This started out as a very serious bill with some provisions in it that made all of us shudder; not just members of the bar. And I'd like to recognize the fact that there are many senators working on this who have polished it to the point where it is not half as bad as it was before."