Supreme Court Justices' Counsel Says Their Paperwork Wasn't 'Electioneering'

The legal counsel for the merit retention campaigns of three state Supreme Court justices said the election-related paperwork handled on court time Monday involved financial disclosure forms, not "electioneering communications."

"The disclosure form is something that everyone who holds a constitutional office in Florida is required to file each year -- including appellate judges -- whether or not they are running for office," said Dan Stengle, counsel for the merit retention campaigns of Justices Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince.

"Each of the justices has their prior disclosure forms on file. These required filings are not electioneering communications."

Stengle added:

"These financial disclosure documents were required to be filed in order for the justices to qualify for constitutional merit retention.

"On Friday, I was notified that these documents had not been filed and thus I asked the justices to complete new forms for qualifying. These are the same documents required to be filed by June 30 of each year."

The fine line between electioneering and required financial disclosure -- and the use of public employees -- snagged state Sen. Gary Siplin in 2006.

Siplin was convicted that year of felony grand theft and the misdemeanor of illegally using three state workers on his 2004 re-election campaign for the Senate.

On Dec. 28, 2007, the Florida 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Siplin's grand theft conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence, thus barring his retrial, and overturned his misdemeanor conviction on the basis that the prosecution failed to provide evidence he had any intent to violate the law.

See Sunshine State News' earlier story here.