Opinion: Governor's contempt of courts

One of Jeb Bush's least admirable traits is the petulance he displays when the courts don't see things his way. The latest case: the Florida Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling this month that the Constitution doesn't allow the Legislature to slap cost estimates on ballot initiatives such as the class-size and pre-kindergarten amendments. The governor called the decision "incomprehensible."

Nothing about the decision was hard to understand except the governor's purported failure to understand it. If the Legislature already has the power the court found lacking, why is there another amendment on the November ballot -- this one proposed by the Legislature itself -- that would authorize the sort of economic impact statements in question? The 2001 Legislature proposed that amendment a year ago in House Joint Resolution 571, which will appear Nov. 5 as Amendment 2.

As Bush is not a lawyer, he could perhaps be forgiven for not recognizing how the Legislature's action a year ago tacitly conceded the constitutional weakness of this year's premature attempt to jump-start the process. But any well-educated person, let alone one who made Phi Beta Kappa, could fairly be expected to read the court's opinion without misrepresenting it as badly as he did. In his statement, Bush said, "The court appears to be condoning a situation that would leave Florida voters in the dark concerning initiatives that will have a significant impact on our state's economy for decades to come."

In fact, the court said this: "If Floridians wish to have a fiscal impact statement included with all initiatives to amend the Constitution, then they can vote to adopt House Joint Resolution 571."

That of course, would come too late to help Bush defeat the class-size initiative. That a panel of economists who owe their jobs to him or to the Legislature had gone out of its way to exaggerate the probable costs, by using a cumulative method of accounting that the Legislature never applies to its own budgets, suggests voters may want to think twice about entrusting the politicians with the power the court found currently lacking.

There are two larger issues here. One is the people's right to amend their own Constitution without excessive interference by the Legislature. The other is the duty of the courts to protect that, and other basic rights, from politicians who can't be bothered with such trifles as constitutional rights.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright