Splitting along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee Thursday approved a bill that would put several court reforms before the voters in 2012.
Though softened by late amendments, House Bill 7111 still took a verbal beating from committee Democrats who branded various provisions as "vindictive," "underhanded" and "unacceptable."
Florida Bar President Mayanne Downs was more measured.
"We're heartened by the progress so far, and we want to continue that process," she told Sunshine State News after the vote.
Downs said she saw "improvements" on rule-making and merit-retention issues, and added that modifications made to the original split Supreme Court proposal "certainly represent substantial progress."
Downs also applauded the House for "potentially transformative" reforms in the funding of courts, and hailed House Speaker Dean Cannon's consultative approach to discussions on the bill.
"He has been very willing to listen and not be stuck in one position," Downs said.
Proponents of the original, tougher reform bill bemoaned Cannon's decision to eliminate the provision that would increase from 50 percent to 60 percent the electoral threshold for judicial merit retention.
Citing what they deemed undue influence by the Bar in bench appointments, reform advocates also hoped to abolish the Judicial Nominating Commissions. The JNCs remain in the latest version, but the bill gives the governor sole discretion in naming commission members.
Instead of creating two Supreme Courts, the amended legislation would form one 10-member court and split it into five-member civil and criminal divisions, headed by a single chief justice.
Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, who sponsored the bill, said the impetus for reform came from a 2001 commission that identified problems in the state's judiciary. Changes also were necessitated by what he cited as lengthy delays in rendering court decisions -- some up to 800 days or more.
But four Democratic representatives -- all attorneys -- branded the reforms a political hatchet job.
Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach, called the bill "vindictive."
"It creates a system where the Supreme Court is more in line with certain people in Tallahassee, and it's done in an underhanded way," he said.
Rep. Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, called it "a veiled attack on the third branch of government, the judiciary."
Rep. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, went even further, characterizing HB 7111 as "the greatest politicizing [of the courts] in history."
Rep. Elaine Schwartz, D-Hollywood, complained that under the legislation, "We would have a governor, without any guidance, able to appoint judges. That's totally unacceptable."
Eisnaugle, who also is an attorney, dismissed the Democrats' political insinuations as "a red herring."
"This bill does not eliminate Judicial Nominating Commissions. It has nothing to do with redistricting. It's been changed dramatically based on feedback, and now there's a whole new crop of complaints."
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, called the Democrats' objections "partisan blather" that overlooked the "accountability and efficiency" issues addressed in the legislation.
Gaetz, also an attorney, said greater efficiency was demanded because "murderers were going free" due to lengthy court delays.
"Justice is being denied when courts are taking up to 800 days" to render a decision, he said.
As for complaints that the House was moving too quickly, Rep. Shawn Harrison, R-Temple Terrace, noted that all constitutional changes must be ratified by Florida voters.
"We're giving the people the right to decide," he said.
Or, as Gaetz put it: "This gives people the chance to take their courts back."
A tea party consortium called Citizen2Citizen gave the latest version of the bill mixed reviews.
"I'm encouraged that the JNC appointments will be given to the governor," Citizen2Citizen founder Jesse Phillips said. "I'm disappointed that the discussion on merit retention is bring shelved.
"The question of what standard we hold our judges to is of vital interest to Floridians. It warrants an open debate and vote next November," he told Sunshine State News.
Also of concern was a tweaking of language opening access to Judicial Qualifications Commission files on judges under investigation for misconduct. The original bill would have made those files available to the public. Access would now be reserved for the House of Representatives, the body that is constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings.
As the bill heads to the House floor, probably next week, Downs said she sees ongoing discussion concerning the composition and role of the Judicial Nominating Commissions.
"No one is saying there should not be political input, but the imprint should be consistent so we don't have swinging back and forth in the law," she said. "The goal is to ameliorate the political process."
Ultimately, she acknowledged that "it's the House prerogative" to weigh and time legislation. "The Bar always favors more discourse and deliberation, not less," Downs added.
--
Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
