Title on ballot: State Courts
Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature
What it would do:
This measure would provide for Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices; give lawmakers control over changes to the rules governing the court system; and direct the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates judicial misconduct complaints, to make its files available to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you want the Senate to have confirmation power over Supreme Court appointees, and some authority over changes to the rules that govern the state’s courts. You also want to grant the House access to Judicial Qualifications Commission’s investigative files on judges.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you do not want these proposed changes made to the state’s judiciary.
Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 5 (including full text of the amendment)
Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):
Proposing a revision of Article V of the State Constitution relating to the judiciary. The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by a general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement that a general law repealing a court rule pass by a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a general law approved by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature that expresses the policy behind the repeal. The court could readopt the rule in conformity with the public policy expressed by the Legislature, but if the Legislature determines that a rule has been readopted and repeals the readopted rule, this proposed revision prohibits the court from further readopting the repealed rule without the Legislature’s prior approval. Under current law, rules of the judicial nominating commissions and the Judicial Qualifications Commission may be repealed by general law enacted by a majority vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Under this proposed revision, a vote to repeal those rules is changed to repeal by general law enacted by a majority vote of the legislators present. Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court before the appointee can take office. If the Senate votes not to confirm the appointment, the judicial nominating commission must reconvene and may not renominate any person whose prior appointment to fill the same vacancy was not confirmed by the Senate. For the purpose of confirmation, the Senate may meet at any time. If the Senate fails to vote on the appointment of a justice within 90 days, the justice will be deemed confirmed and will take office. The Judicial Qualifications Commission is an independent commission created by the State Constitution to investigate and prosecute before the Florida Supreme Court alleged misconduct by a justice or judge. Currently under the constitution, commission proceedings are confidential until formal charges are filed by the investigative panel of the commission. Once formal charges are filed, the formal charges and all further proceedings of the commission are public. Currently, the constitution authorizes the House of Representatives to impeach a justice or judge. Further, the Speaker of the House of Representatives may request, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission must make available, all information in the commission’s possession for use in deciding whether to impeach a justice or judge. This proposed revision requires the commission to make all of its files available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives but provides that such files would remain confidential during any investigation by the House of Representatives and until such information is used in the pursuit of an impeachment of a justice or judge. This revision also removes the power of the Governor to request files of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to conform to a prior constitutional change. This revision also makes technical and clarifying additions and deletions relating to the selection of chief judges of a circuit and relating to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and makes other nonsubstantive conforming and technical changes in the judicial article of the constitution.
Arguments for:
Supporters say the measure would make the appellate court system run more efficiently and add a layer of accountability before Supreme Court justices are appointed.
Arguments against:
Opponents say the measure is a dangerous attempt to exert political influence over the judicial branch by giving legislators more authority.
Should the State Senate Confirm Florida Supreme Court Appointees?
Amendment 5 is about the balance of power among the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government. One of the more meaningful provision is the one granting the state Senate confirmation power over appointees to the Florida Supreme Court. Currently, the governor fills openings on the court by appointing a nominee from a list presented by a judicial nominating commission. If passed, this amendment would allow the Senate to reject or approve nominees.
It would also give members of the state House of Representatives access to confidential files involving judges accused of misconduct, and would give lawmakers the right to repeal procedural court rules with a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds majority vote, as currently required.
Supporters say it would bring change to a court system that gives the governor too much power in appointing judges. Opponents say it would politicize the process and shift the balance of power by giving the Legislature too much influence over the judiciary.
The measure passed the Legislature largely along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats against. As with all amendments, passage requires the approval of 60 percent or more of the voters. If passed, it becomes effective on Jan. 8, 2013.
History
Over its first 40 years after becoming a state in 1845, Florida changed the way it decides who sits on the Supreme Court a half-dozen times, from Legislative appointment, to popular elections, to gubernatorial appointment with Senate oversight, and then back to popular elections.
Starting in 1972, Florida ended the popular election of justices and changed to a merit selection system. That process begins when a vacancy opens on the court and a Judicial Nominating Commission compiles a list of three to six nominees to present to the governor. The governor selects an appointee from that list who is then seated on the court. After being appointed, justices serve six-year terms and face voters in a “yes” or “no” retention vote at the end of each term to decide whether they remain in office, based on the merit of their service.
How Florida Compares
About a dozen states use a gubernatorial appointment system similar to the one Florida currently uses to select Supreme Court justices, according to the National Center for State Courts. Another dozen states have some sort of state Senate or other legislative confirmation process like that being proposed in Amendment 5. The remaining states let the public choose their Supreme Court justices, mostly through non-partisan elections.
Amendment 5
In April 2011, with one week left in the legislative session, House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, proposed dramatic changes to the state’s courts. In addition to giving confirmation power to the Senate over Supreme Court nominees, Cannon proposed adding three justices to the Supreme Court and then splitting the court into two five-member courts, with one handling criminal cases and the other civil cases.
The backlash was immediate. Some judges and The Florida Bar, which represents the state’s 90,000 lawyers, spoke out in opposition. A coalition of powerful and influential people quickly formed Floridians for Fair & Impartial Courts. Members include former Supreme Court justices, former Florida Bar presidents and former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, and former Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero, who sits on the Collins Center’s board of trustees.
Cannon withdrew his call to split the court and characterized his proposal as a starting point for discussions about reforming the court. The proposed amendment ultimately approved for the 2012 ballot would, if passed by voters, give the Senate confirmation power over Supreme Court nominees and allow the House access to JQC investigative reports, among other provisions.
If Amendment 5 is approved, the governor will choose a Supreme Court appointee from a list presented by a judicial nominating commission, as he currently does. The Senate will then have 90 days to confirm that appointee. If the appointee is rejected, another will be offered by the governor until one is confirmed. If the Senate does not vote on confirmation within 90 days of a candidate being offered, the appointee will be deemed confirmed and will join the court.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you want the Senate to have confirmation power over Supreme Court appointees, and some authority over changes to the rules that govern the state’s courts. You also want to grant the House access to Judicial Qualifications Commission’s investigative files on judges.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you do not want these proposed changes made to the state’s judiciary.
___________________________________________
Personally I believe that this proposed change works in the Federal government and would work fine in our state government.
This would be a distaster for our state. The GOP would pack the courts with rightwingers who would do their bidding. If the tea party scares you, please vote NO.
Please get a grip. The governor currently selects these justices. Soooooooo, whether we have a Republican or Democrat governor, either ideology can pack the court with their selections. At least with this amendment, more people on both sides of the aisle have to weigh in with their approval before a supreme court justice can be confirmed.
The Seperation of the three branches of Government (Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial) is a fundemental tenant of democracy. Although there will always be some political influence in the decisions of the judicial branch. The autonomy implicit in the seperation clause should work as checks and balances against any one branch overstepping its authority…VOTE NO
You are 100% correct.
The present Right control of the Florida House and Senate have done enough harm, time for a swing back to the middle.
Extremism is always bad.
Yet US Supreme Court Justices (i.e. the highest court in the land and last decision on all matters legal) functions in almost the same way as is being proposed in this amendment. This is not an issue of separation of powers, as this process exists in numerous other states and in Washington.
I will be voting ‘yes’ on amendment 5.
I too believe this process works well in the Federal government and would work fine in our state government.
This proposed change is NOT how it works in our federal government. Our federal government appoints Supreme Court justices for a lifetime appointment. Our state justices still face election. Also, our federal government does not give Congress the power to repeal the rulings of the SCOTUS. This is nothing like the way the federal government legislature-judicial relationship, and is an absolute power grab that would toss checks and balances aside. This should be alarming to all Floridians, and deserves a “NO” vote.
Our government is about checks and balances; this does not follow. If Floridian legislatures have the authority to police our judges… Honestly, if we are to model this like other states with different measures, why not let the people vote in non-partisan elections for our Florida Supreme Court Justices? Would that be too much power on the popular vote?
I don’t want either side of the aisle loading up the courts with their preferred type of judge, nor do I want judges to make judgement calls in landmark cases based upon which side of the aisle will be reviewing them.
I almost understand you. What I don”t understand is about the judges. I don’t want crooked judges who would vote on the side of “money” I don’t want judges voting on the side of “Illegal’s. I want to make sure they are not “Socialist” or “Communist “. I in no way mean to offend you, I’m just trying to figure out how to vote on this amendment.
Really bad idea. You saw what the GOP tried to do with redistricting this past year. The courts at least made the process half-way honest. Not so if this ammendment is voted in. No checks and balance, only partisanship government.
Your history does not mention the political corruption that led to Florida’s adoption of merit retention. I view this amendment as a power grab by the legislature to weaken the judicial branch of our government. The merit retention system we have works fine, and we should not fix what is not broken.
Many of you are talking about checks and balances….but you don’t see that currently there are no checks and balances when one person, the governor a political being, is making the selection. At least there is a chance of checks and balances if the Senate has to approve the selectee. Is this a perfect solution, probably not…..but I am tired of the judges legislating from the bench. To me that is the bigger issue!!
Hello Barb, I agree with you. I am so fed up with the Judges getting the last word. I feel we should be able to vote on “Important State and National ” matters. Afterall, we are the we are the ones who have to live with the vote. If we vote wrong we will pay for it. Another thing that bothers me is the way these Amendments are worded. Just say in “Laymen” terms. Not everyone is a judge or Government Official. Let us understand what we are reading. I think they word the Amendments, so we cannot understand them. Most people will not admit they don’t understand. It’s time to set pride aside and ask them to change the wording.
Thank you all for your comments, I wasn’t sure how to vote but you made it so easy to vote YES
!
While it seems to me that the current system does put too much power in the hands of the governor, the proposed “checks and balances” go too far in the other direction. What’s a voter to do when both options are bad? I guess the current system is the lesser evil. Let’s vote NO on this amendment, but keep the conversation going.
Agree with the majority of the comments here. There must continue to be the separation of the three branches of government. A dominant FL Legislature, either party, would be able to manipulate appointees to the judicial branch. Not a good thing.
Vote NO. The way the system works now is that candidates for the supreme court are proposed by their peers based on merit for a 6-year term and voters have the opportunity to retain them or reject them based on their performance after this period. That’s a good thing. The proposed amendment will politicized the process and the judiciary. Gary, you are mistaken. The proposed system on the federal level proved disastrous to our democracy. The supreme court gave us George W. in 2004 even though he lost FL and gave us Citizens United that shifted the political power away from the people and gave it to a handful of super billionaires and rich companies that can buy elections without having to disclose their identity.
I would be for this, especially the 2nd paragraph. Just think, as of right now the Governor has the right to appoint based off a list of nominees without subject to confirmation. Adding this PROVIDES for a check & balance and I think would help to promote more moderate selections. I’m a true Republican yet I wouldn’t want Rick Scott being able to post his selection without sometime type of senatorial confirmation. This works for ALL of us.
However, the 1st paragraph of the Amendment is completely unacceptable and I will vote NO as a result.
I don’t see how a NO vote maintains checks and balances. The way I read it, all of the selection power currently rests with the governor. Wouldn’t allowing the Senate to weigh in increase checks and balances?
This amendment would put the state of Florida in the right direction, a YES vote is positive for Florida.
Perhaps just as or more importantly this amendment would make it much more easy for a SIMPLE majority of legislatures PRESENT to change the rules for practice and procedures of all courts and SIMILARLY, change the rules of the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Judicial Qualifications Commission. Add in a Senate confirmation requirement and you might as well allow the legislature to pick judges!
Francine….your comment convinced me to vote yes
As Robert put it, a clear power grab by the legislature, which is one-party-dominated via gerrymandering (and probably will remain so, despite two constitutional amendments). Now they want more. Another problem with this amendment is that it should be at least three seperate items; there is no way anyone should give a blanket ‘yes’ to these, especially when they all skew the checks and balances in favor of the legislature.
Everyone, the Florida Republican party is attempting to get rid of justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. These three repeatedly vote independent and according to what they interpret in the constitution, and not the agenda of any one particular party. If these three can be dropped, they will use this proposed amendment to institute folks who think like ‘them’.
This method sounds like a mini version of the federal method, where the Pres appoints the judges, and the Congress approves. Congress has the most power, since they are closest to the people, and composed of “we the people.” This amendment would certainly make it better, and keep the judges accountable to the will of the people, and not legislate from the bench. This way the entire state, via all counties, is better represented when confirming which judges sit where. Congress has the power to ‘reign in’ the Supreme Court in cases where they start to go buck-wild and legislate. The same should be said of Florida’s system.