Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente may have gotten a bit more than she bargained for at Temple Emeth last month.
Taking a rhetorical shot at Gov. Rick Scott, the Lawton Chiles appointee warned the synagogue conclave that a failure to keep her on the bench would "give Governor Scott the right to make his appointments, which will result in partisan political appointments."
Free speech and political differences are great, but in the world of lawyerly canons of ethics and judicial conduct, Pariente sounded like just another partisan tub-thumper -- the kind that high-minded judges typically revile.
Pariente, who has been on the court since 1997, opened herself up to several questions (which deserve forthright consideration):
- After openly impugning Scott's conservative politics, can she reasonably sit on any cases in which the governor is a party?
- Can she fairly rule on any cases involving the Florida Bar now that the Bar has committed an unprecedented $300,000 for a retention "education" campaign that can be perceived as aiding her?
- Amid the political grandstanding, how does Pariente shake the label of being an "activist judge"? Or does she even acknowledge it?
Pariente, along with fellow Justices Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, already believe they're under political assault; their attorney, Dan Stengle, has stipulated as much to the state.
Stengle, legal counsel for the justices' merit retention campaigns, says all three judges face "active opposition."
"This allows the justices to avail themselves of the full range of authorized campaign activities, limited though these activities may be for judges under the judicial canons," Stengle said.
In addition to raising some $500,000 -- which, in itself, could raise the same kinds of qualms voters have about the independence of money-managed politicians --the justices are getting help from other quarters.
On Monday evening, three committees working on behalf of the three justices will host a high-end fundraiser at the Doubletree Hotel in Tallahassee. Suggested contribution: $500 for each campaign.
The invitation lists a "host committee" of 45 big shots, including former Gov. Reuben Askew, Brian Ballard, Sandy D'Alemberte, Leander Shaw and Barry Richard. (See a copy of the invitation here.)
Though the backers are bipartisan, conservative activists believe that Pariente, Lewis and Quince are anything but. All three justices rejected the Legislature's attempt to put President Obama's Affordable Care Act to a statewide voter referendum.
Back in 2000, the trio was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the hotly contested Bush v. Gore controversy.
Critics (the "active opposition") reportedly are poring over the justices' other rulings and writings to use as campaign fodder this fall. So far, however, only one group -- the small, Florida-based Restore Justice -- has articulated any public doubts about the threesome.
Make no mistake: It's an uphill fight to get a judge thrown off the bench. Since Florida's retention elections began in 1978, no jurist has failed to garner the necessary majority vote.
But Iowa points to a possible shift in the public's benign attitude toward judges.
In a rebuke to that state's Supreme Court, Iowans voted to remove three justices who approved same-sex marriage there.
The Iowa justices did not raise money to campaign and only toward the end of the election did they make public appearances to defend themselves, the New York Times reported.
The Times also reported that similar ouster campaigns are under way in other states where justices are running unopposed in retention elections. In virtually every case, the heat is coming from conservatives inflamed by court rulings on abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care.
For all this democracy to work out as planned, voters must exercise truly informed choices. An unblemished judicial retention rate that the old Soviet Politburo could only dream of isn't necessarily a badge of honor.
A Florida Bar spokeswoman hardly heaped praise on the system when she noted, "90 percent of voters don't know what [retention] is." Indeed, the judicial lines on the ballot are consistently the least marked.
This doesn't mean voters are stupid -- just woefully uninformed, even about judges who have been on the bench for decades. Before anyone is anointed for another six-year term, a little scrutiny seems in order.
If the Bar, in concert with the League of Women Voters, can put its $300,000 into a campaign that truly educates the public by shedding light on judicial records, the public will be better off.
Let the sunshine in.
Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
