MUZZLED
TC PALM Editorial: Judicial Candidates Hide Behind Florida Bar's Restrictive Free-Speech Canon
Florida's sparsely contested judicial contests continue to suffer from a lack of transparency
Florida has 162 Circuit Court judgeships up for grabs this year. So far, just 23 of those races are contested — and only five incumbents face a challenge.
Voters might infer that the current crop of sitting judges is doing such a spectacular job that no competition is necessary. That questionable inference is buttressed by the Florida Bar, which effectively muzzles campaign debate via the "Code of Judicial Conduct."
Canon 7 prevents judicial candidates from making "pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office." It also prohibits "statements that commit or appear to commit them with respect to cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court."
The Code of Conduct may be a well-meaning attempt to keep "politics" out of the judiciary, but elections are, by definition, political. To properly exercise their franchise, voters need transparency — not robotic responses and legalistic stonewalls.
Federal courts, up to the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that judicial candidates — like every other seeker of public office — have First Amendment rights to free speech.
In a 1990 case, American Civil Liberties Union v. the Florida Bar, a federal district court threw out provisions of Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct that barred judicial candidates from announcing their views of disputed legal or political issues.
Yet this state's Bar and its disciplinary council continue to chill the environment.
"Florida is defying these decisions," says James Bopp, an Indiana attorney who litigates free-speech issues nationwide. In 2006, he sued over judicial candidates' failure to respond to a questionnaire from the Florida Family Policy Council. The case is pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court.
Calling this state's canon "unconstitutional," Bopp says the Bar has "a lot of authority over judges." And, it seems, over voters, as well. With precious little disclosure or debate, the electorate can only go by what the Bar deems appropriate.
Acting as a virtual cartel, the Bar indulges in a bit of politicking itself by issuing recommendations in judicial retention elections. Batting 1.000, it has advised Floridians to retain every judge, and voters have obeyed that counsel every time. The Soviet Union's Politburo had greater electoral diversity.
Lawyers, including lawyers who want to be judges, maintain that the judiciary is "different" than the executive or legislative branches of government. But to suggest that politics don't enter into the courtroom is simply fatuous. As long as the Florida Constitution provides for election of judges, the electoral process must be open and transparent. Democracy demands it.
"There's a move nationally toward further disclosure of judicial candidates' philosophy," says Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C. That trend, backed by federal court decisions, needs to play out in the Sunshine State, which, in other arenas, has some of the strongest open-government laws in the country.
It's time the Bar and its barristers let the sun shine in.
© 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co./Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Letter: Florida Bar lacks 'authority' over judges
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Clarification is needed on your March 19 editorial, “Judicial candidates hide behind Florida Bar’s restrictive free-speech canon.”
The Supreme Court of Florida adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct in 1973, after appointing a special committee to study the matter in 1970. The code went beyond rules that had been in place since the 1940s.
In 1995, the Supreme Court adopted a revision of the code. The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida, require attorneys who run for judicial office to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct as it relates to judicial elections.
The editorial quotes Indiana attorney James Bopp as saying that the Bar has “a lot of authority over judges.” This is not true. Once a candidate is elected, judicial conduct comes under the province of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, as outlined in Article 5, Section 12, of Florida’s Constitution.
If a judge is out of office, the Florida Bar can request that the Supreme Court sanction the former judge for misconduct. But while the judge is in office, the Bar has no such authority.
Additionally, the editorial wrongly states that the Florida Bar issues recommendations in judicial retention elections. The Bar makes no recommendations. The Bar does, however, poll its members in the years when merit retention elections are held and reports the results as a service to the public.
John F. Harkness Jr.
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/27/letter-florida-bar-lacks-authority-over-judges/
Guys at my high school would write editorials with no merit all the time, it was no big deal.
Yeah, like the JQC really reins in the antics of judges by any means that would be considered as policing of judicial abuses. Not here they don't. Although that could be changing too.
What's the big deal. Elections about nothing featuring candidates who stand for nothing who want a job that means nothing except carrying out the State mandated job of keeping the balcks in line.
The Florida Bar--especially the Ft. Lauderdale branch are absolute lying frauds who spend their time finding ways to vcover up real attorney malpractice. The JQC is just as big a lying fraud for covering up ral judicial abuses and criminal judicial acts directly in violation of multiple Canons. The Canons are frauds because under Canon 3 D. (1) & (2) when a judge receives information that there is a likelihood a (1) judge &/or (2) and attorney is in violation of (1) the Canons &/or (2) the Bar Rules, then the SHALL take appropriate action. Instead, they through their JAs, refuse to allow communication with the judges to give them the information so to prevent and insulate themselves as judges from receiving any information that would require them having to do whar the Canons require they SHALL do.
The Judges on the JQC who do receive this information defer it to appellated courts by enjoining the Conduct of Canon violations with their actions instread of separating the specific judicial acts as Conduct regardless of the capcity in which the Conduct violations were committee, thereby allowing judicial conduct that is a criminal violation to go uninvestigated.
Meanwhile, these BSers go after people like Sean Conway because he had the guts to put his name on the truth and judge Cliff Barnes for doing the same thing after Barnes received information or had facatual knowlegde of Code violations of other judges and took some action that he SHALL take according the the Canons, themselves.
So who's pulling whose what?
Tell us Big Fred--real inquiring minds want to know--it's only the press' uninquiring mindas that don't.
Aleman is a small fish in the big cesspool called the Florida Judiciary and the House Committee on Courts has already declared that it will not go after a judge for violating and ignoring the statutes it passes and violating other criminal statutes in the process because, despite the fact the legislature's job is to balance the powers of government, in truth, it has declared that it is "Public Policy" in Florida not to hold a judge accountable for violating the statutes the legislature passes. And that cones directly out of the horse's gas that Executive Direct the House Committee and a declaration of was against the Constitution comes right out of the horse's gas that Chairs that same committee--