Where We Stand: Ayala’s defense doesn’t measure up.

Did Gov. Rick Scott overstep his executive authority by removing 24 death-penalty cases from Orange-Osceola State Attorney Aramis Ayala? A lawyer for the prosecutor went to Florida’s highest court this week to make that argument. And fell short.

At issue was the governor’s response after Ayala declared at a news conference in March that she would not be seeking the death penalty against accused cop-killer Markeith Loyd or any other defendants in capital cases as long as she served as the top prosecutor in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit. Scott responded by transferring all pending death-penalty cases, including Loyd’s, to the office of Brad King, the state attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, who happens to be a strong proponent of capital punishment.

There are obvious political overtones in this dispute. Scott, a Republican, is expected to run for U.S. Senate next year. He regularly claims credit for reducing Florida’s crime rate. He has signed more death warrants, 23, than any other Florida governor since the state brought back capital punishment in the 1970s. Ayala, a Democrat, is the first African-American state attorney in Florida’s history and a rising star in her party. Her stance against the death penalty — and the high-profile way in which she chose to unveil it — attracted attention and support from around Florida and across the country. It also created an irresistible political opportunity for Scott.

But the dispute’s appropriate resolution depends on the law, not politics.

Ayala’s lawyer, Roy Austin Jr. of Washington, D.C., went to the Florida Supreme Court hoping to convince the justices that Scott had violated the law, and must return the “stolen” cases to Ayala’s office. Austin might have expected a friendly reception. The high court hasn’t hesitated to overturn other actions and policies from Scott. Even after the governor’s appointment last year of Justice Alan Lawson, a conservative, the court still has a 4-3 liberal majority.

Austin, however, met with skepticism from justices in both of the high court’s voting blocs. Chief Justice Jorge Labarga, who normally sides with the liberal majority, was among the most critical in questioning him. “You are going to have a situation where, in the state of Florida, you are going to have one circuit with the death penalty and another without it ... How is that proper? Why do we need the Legislature, if we have that?” Labarga asked. An excellent question — one the court is likely to answer whenever it issues its ruling.

As we argued in March, prosecutors are properly entrusted with the discretion on what punishments to pursue case by case. But Ayala abused that discretion when she adopted a policy, never disclosed to voters as she campaigned for the job, of ruling out the death penalty in all capital cases as long as she is in office. Her current term runs through 2020.

There’s no disputing that capital punishment in Florida has been fraught with problems. But it remains the responsibility of the Florida Legislature, not individual state attorneys, to fix them. It’s legislators’ call whether the death penalty can be repaired, or should be repealed.

Meanwhile, state law empowers the governor to reassign cases between state attorneys for any “good and sufficient reason.” A prosecutor’s blanket refusal even to consider a criminal penalty provided under state law meets that threshold.

If Floridians are uncomfortable with the governor holding this vague and unbounded authority over a locally elected state attorney, the remedy — again — lies with the Legislature.

Scott has rightly resisted calls from many GOP legislators to remove Ayala from office. Doing so would be an abuse of his authority. Ultimately, it’s up to voters to decide whether Ayala remains state attorney beyond 2020.

The Orange-Osceola state attorney’s arguments for reclaiming capital cases are unconvincing.

It’s up to legislators, not individual prosecutors, to address problems with the death penalty in Florida.