Constitution panel invites court defeat

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement already has an office to confront the threat of terrorism. And Florida already has a Department of Veterans Affairs. Neither needs to be written into the state Constitution. Yet both are on the Nov. 6 ballot as politically appealing eyewash for a devious scheme to tear up the charters of Broward and seven other counties — and cripple home rule throughout the state.

The change benefits no one, but some sheriffs and other local constitutional officials who seem to have grown too big for their britches. It would happen, though, should voters agree to Amendment 10, a proposal by the Constitution Revision Commission The Constitution that would have its Revision Commission leaders scrounging for bail abused its authority by money if deceptive political

logrolling. posturing were a criminal offense. Courts need to send a

In this case, however, there is message that bundling something the civil courts can unrelated measures and do. That’s to throw this political misleading voters isn’t malpractice off the ballot on acceptable. account of a summary that doesn’t fairly tell voters what they would be doing.

Broward and Volusia counties have filed separate circuit court lawsuits in Tallahassee to bounce the proposed amendment from the ballot. The court should give these cases a high priority and deal with them promptly, since the decisions will be appealed no matter which way they go. Among the intended effects of Amendment 10: Broward, which appoints its tax collector, would have to elect one for that office . ...

Miami-Dade, which appoints its chief law enforcer, would have to elect a sheriff.

The decision Volusia County voters made in 1970 to appoint all their county officers would be overturned.

And no other county would be allowed to appoint, rather than elect, any sheriff, property appraiser, tax collector, supervisor of elections or circuit court clerk. No charter could alter their duties. Whatever a county’s voters thought about that wouldn’t matter.

Amendment 10 was lobbied by a coalition of sheriffs and other officials, and sponsored by commission members with significant conflicts of interest. One is a court clerk. Another is a sheriff, and a third was an acting sheriff who now works for the attorney general. Although Amendment 10 would not affect their own jobs directly, it would increase the already substantial collective political influence of their statewide associations.

The commission pulled the same stunt with Amendment 8. It lumps a mandate that school board members serve no more than two terms with a requirement to teach civic literacy and let the state establish schools not subject to a local school board’s supervision or control. The plain intent is to rip apart the constitutional requirement that Florida have a “uniform” system of free public schools, laying the groundwork for massive support to religious schools and corporate-run charters. Commission member Hank Coxe, a former president of The Florida Bar, argued in dissent that it would “abolish public education” in Florida. Coxe has also been outspoken against the logrolling.

Amendment 8 isn’t in court yet, but it will be. Ron Meyer, an attorney for the Florida Education Association, said the paperwork is being prepared. The ballot summary, he said, is not only misleading but “essentially unintelligible.” It deserves to go into the trash can along with Amendment 10.

The overall performance of this commission was so poor, especially compared to that of the last commission 20 years ago, as to renew an old argument about whether Florida still needs this method of amending the constitution. We think it does, but the courts should send a clear message to the commission of 2037-38 not to abuse its powers as this one did.