Amendment 4 suit judge withdraws from case
Wife works for the law firm that represents two defendants
A federal judge who has routinely ruled against the state in election-related lawsuits has withdrawn from overseeing a challenge to a new state law requiring ex-felons pay all fines, fees and restitution before voting rights are restored — a development the judge hinted was the result of a deliberate strategy to force him off the case.
U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker on Wednesday filed an order disqualifying himself from the case, saying his wife works for the same law firm as an attorney who recently signed up to represent two of the defendants, including Secretary of State Laurel Lee.
George Meros of Holland & Knight LLP filed a notice with the court Tuesday, saying he would represent Lee and Broward County Supervisor of Elections Pete Antonacci, both Republicans. Walker’s wife, Karen, also works for the firm.
In his order Wednesday, Walker, who serves as the chief judge of Florida’s Northern District, wrote, “the conduct at issue here is deeply troubling.”
Walker pointed to a 2015 lawsuit in which defendants hired Holland & Knight mid-way through the judicial proceedings. Plaintiffs accused the defendants of “judge shopping” by intentionally hiring a lawyer from the firm where Walker’s wife worked so another judge would be assigned to the case. Walker did not recuse himself, but asked for an opinion from another judge in the matter.
Senior District Judge Maurice Paul instead disqualified Holland & Knight from the case.
In his April 2016 decision, Paul wrote that Holland & Knight “should be disqualified because of
the potential for manipulation of the judicial system, the lack of need by defendants for this particular counsel, and the potential delay and loss of judicial activity,” a finding Walker referred to in Wednesday’s order.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals “has outlined a process to differentiate legitimate judicial recusal necessary under federal law from frivolous recusals brought on by unscrupulous shenanigans,” Walker wrote.
But the judge said he “will not employ that process” now.
“Although the conduct at issue is deeply troubling, I am relieved of those concerns by confidence in my colleagues on this court to preside over the remainder of this case and judge it fairly and wisely,” he wrote.
Antonacci, through his spokesman, said he didn’t do anything improper and Meros’s hiring was not a ploy.
“George Meros has been retained by this office because Mr. Antonacci has known and worked with him since 1997,” Steve Vancore said by email. “As his former law partner and he knows his expertise in this area of law very well. With this professional competence and for that reason he has been retained.”
Sarah Revell, spokeswoman for Lee, didn’t have any comment Wednesday afternoon.
The elections lawsuit, reassigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, is centered on provisions in a new law that went into effect July 1.
A number of plaintiffs — represented by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund — allege the legislation unconstitutionally “creates two classes of citizens,” depending on their ability to pay financial obligations.