by JBA Board of Governors member Geddes Anderson
On March 24, 2011, the Board of Governors of The Jacksonville Bar Association (JBA) unanimously approved a resolution opposing the passage of legislation that would:
1. Strip rulemaking authority from the Florida Supreme Court and give it to the Legislature.
2. Abolish the present structure of the Florida Supreme Court allowing the Governor the ability to pack the Florida Supreme Court with additional justices and decide who should preside as Chief Justice.
3. Eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commissions (“JNC”) conferring more power to the Governor and the Legislature.
4. Do away with the Judicial Qualification Commissions (“JQC”) confidentiality giving the Legislature unfettered access to allegations of judicial misconduct.
5. Compensate judges based on the quantity of cases they dispose of.
6. Increase judicial merit retention from 50% to 60% resulting in less retention of and more campaigning by judges.
Florida attorneys and other stakeholders condemned the proposed legislation calling it an attack on the judiciary and reprisal after the Supreme Court struck three constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature last year.
The JBA’s Board resolution was one of many resolutions from bar associations and bar organizations across the state opposing the legislation and demonstrating the unity of Florida lawyers in support of the third branch of government.
The unity by Florida lawyers is working.
Recently, legislative leadership backtracked by gutting its own proposal and spinning it as a mere “starting point.” The reversal, however, is substituted by a revised proposal that calls for additional scrutiny.
The revised proposal maintains the JNC. However, the governor would be given the authority to replace the members of the JNC subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate.
The revised proposal preserves the confidentiality of judicial complaints before the JQC. However, it authorizes the Legislature “access” to the confidential records and public disclosure of such records would be permitted in the event of judicial impeachment proceedings.
In the revised proposal, the form of the Florida Supreme Court survives. The Supreme Court, however, would be expanded to 10 justices to fill criminal and civil divisions. The governor would select the additional justices and also pick each division chief; the chief justice of the Supreme Court would rotate between the two division chiefs.
In making the revisions, legislative leadership suggested that the proposals were aimed at helping the court system become more efficient. Dealing the “efficiency card” is very weak and is more of a pretext than anything else.
The proposals are really about power – more power for the legislative and executive branches.
The judiciary does not need revamping. It needs reliable and adequate funding so that our judges don’t have to continually grovel to the Legislature. Funding for the courts is less than 0.7 percent of the total state budget – a very small price for such a vital function in our society.
The fact of the matter is that our bench is overworked and understaffed. Florida has fewer trial judges per capita than most other comparable states:
• Georgia – 10.7 judges per 100,000 population
• Texas – 10 judges per 100,000 population
• New Jersey – 8.9 judges per 100,000 population
• Pennsylvania – 8.2 judges per 100,000 population
• National average – 7.3 judges per 100,000 population
• Florida – 4.5 judges per 100,000 population
Even if the Legislative Branch was serious about helping its co-equal judicial brethren, legislators ought to implement the ideas set forth in the “Seven Principles for Stabilizing Court Funding” published by The Office of the State Courts Administrator. These seven principles are set forth as follows:
1. The elements of the State Courts System codified in section 29.001, Florida Statutes, should be adequately funded by the State to ensure the guarantee of court access by Florida’s citizens.
2. Court fees assessed and paid by Florida’s citizens to access their court system should be dedicated to the court system, as already provided for by state law.
3. Unless adequate safeguards are in place, court-related revenue other than filing fee revenue (revenue derived from fines, service charges, and costs) should not be dedicated to court funding but used to support other justice system partners.
4. All current court-related revenue being collected should be re-evaluated to determine what portion of current filing fee revenue should be dedicated to court funding.
5. Additional or increased filing fees should be considered, but only after an adequate review of the distribution of the current filing fee revenue has been made.
6. Some components of the State Courts System are more appropriately funded from the general fund and should remain so.
7. State Court Trust Funds are the appropriate depositories for court filing fee revenue.
In her address to the Florida Legislature in February 2009, Justice Peggy Quince implored the Legislature:
“Without adequate funding, we are sure to fail in our attempts to improve the administration of justice . . . we cannot properly adjudicate our cases - fairly, impartially and timely - without adequate resources. . . (we) ask that you consider our seven principles, so that we are able to work together to ensure that our courts can continue to remain open to all Floridians as our constitution envisions: justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”
While Florida lawyers are united, action should be taken now, both collectively and individually, to protect the judiciary by, not only opposing the perils of the revised proposals but, more importantly, addressing the crisis of inadequate funding for the court system.
To contact your state legisla-
tor on the web, log onto http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/Find or http://www.myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Representatives/representatives.aspx.
Other legislative leaders include Senate Judiciary Chair Anitere Flores at 850-487-5130 or [email protected] and House Judiciary Chair
Bill Snyder at 850-488-8832 [email protected].