Florida’s sham: Governors rig courts via ‘partisan litmus tests’
On this Independence Day, we are reminded that the Declaration of Independence provided a list of 27 separate grievances against King George. One of these grievances was, “He
(the King) has made judges dependent upon his will alone, for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
In response, the framers of the Constitution provided for the appointment of judges who are not beholden to the other branches of government. Judicial independence is one of the cornerstones of American democracy.
Independent judges promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts. Independent judges do not allow social, political, or other relationships to influence their decisions, or advance the private interests of the judge or others.
Governor Rubin Askew had the courage and foresight to limit political considerations in the selection of judges. He created nominating commissions for each of the courts in Florida. The commissions were composed of nine members: three appointed by the governor; three appointed by The Florida Bar; and three appointed by the first six. The commissions received applications from interested lawyers, conducted interviews and sent three names to the governor, who appointed one of the three nominees.
The system worked admirably until recent governors started watering it down. Now the governor appoints all of the members of the commissions, but only after extracting assurances from them to only nominate the most politically conservative applicants. If the members of the commissions don’t fall in line, the governor does not hesitate to instruct the commissioners who to nominate. The chair of one of the commissions recently resigned in protest rather than to bow to that kind of gubernatorial interference.
The people of Florida should be infuriated at this state of affairs. Judges should be selected based upon qualifications and not upon their political ideology.
The recent judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the local trial courts all share the same conservative background and may have had to promise or assure the governor they will rule along the party line on hot button issues.
Buzzwords like “taking a fresh look at issues” or “not legislating from the bench” either convey a tacit agreement to overrule precedents that conservative legislators don’t like or an agreement to uphold legislation that should not pass constitutional muster. Striking down unconstitutional statutes is exclusively the job of the judiciary as a check on the Legislature. The courts should approach that duty responsibly and not from a partisan point of view.
Instead of selecting judges who pass a partisan litmus test, judges should be selected who possess stellar qualifications. The most successful judges generally have backgrounds that include a solid legal education, broad legal experience, an excellent reputation with the members of the local Bar Association, and the ability to approach legal issues impartially and without a political agenda or influence. Nominating commissions do not have to consider any of these qualifications when they nominate lawyers to fill judicial vacancies.
It is unlikely that the Florida Legislature will change the current law and do away with the sham process now in place. After all, the only people who will suffer if the judicial branch is not composed of qualified, impartial judges are the people of Florida.
Currently, applicants for judicial positions can have no confidence they will receive fair consideration on their merits or that the system isn’t rigged by the governor. Governor Askew’s plan tended to produce well qualified, impartial judges. The present system does not.
O. H. Eaton, Jr., is a retired circuit judge from Seminole County.
The people of Florida should be infuriated at this state of affairs. Judges should be selected based upon qualifications and not upon their political ideology.