Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Florida voters irrelevant to sophisticated Legislature

By MARTIN DYCKMAN
Published April 17, 2005

TALLAHASSEE - The proposed "Petition Fraud and Voter Protection Act," as I wrote two weeks ago, is more about preventing initiative petitions and protecting the big business lobbies from impertinent voters. It still goes beyond what's reasonably necessary or what the courts are likely to approve. Even as it pulled a few of the bill's sharpest teeth, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee demonstrated why Florida needs more democracy, not less.

With every major amendment still on the table and 22 citizens having filed cards to speak, it was only by one vote, 4 to 3, that the committee defeated a motion to set a 20-minute deadline for completing action on SB 1996. The impatient proponent was Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Melbourne, whose youthful face belies a harshly conservative ideology.

Among the values that liberals and conservatives supposedly share is a belief that the people should be heard. But this is Florida, and - as the state once advertised to prospective tourists - the rules are different here.

The amendments having been disposed of, there were still 73 minutes before the committee would have to adjourn. Haridopolos moved to allow only 13 minutes for public testimony and final debate on the bill. This time his gag rule carried. That left 13 minutes for the "gazillion cards," as the committee chairman put it.

That was fine with most of the 22. The lobbyists for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Duda Farms, the Farm Bureau Federation and other public enemies - yes, on this bill they are the public's enemies - were each happy to "waive my time in support of the bill." They already knew how it would come out.

So did the lobbyists for the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, and the state employee's union. But they insisted on using their few minutes. They were like drowning people gasping for air. It's hopeless, yet instinct compels the attempt.

That was a typical incident, not an isolated one. Despite new management, the Legislature's committee process remains geared to ratifying deals cut and decisions made by the True Constituency long before mere citizens are permitted to see them. The public testimony is only for show.

Another example from last week: A last-minute amendment submitted to the House Judiciary Committee completely rewrote HB 1331, which shields doctors and hospitals from suits over faulty mammogram readings. Even some of the legislators complained of having too little time to study it. But they passed it anyway.

The bill makes faulty mammography harder to prove than any other medical malpractice. Women voters will note the absence of any equivalent burden on prostate cancer victims.

Another lobbyist-driven bill - SB 2242, HB 1343 - would overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision that arbitration clauses cannot be enforced when the underlying contract is illegal. Banks and other establishment lenders want this, but the big winners would include some very shady payday lenders that are still trying to enforce contracts Florida has since explicitly outlawed. It was a payday lending case in which the court ruled.

This could be mortifying to a Legislature that showers praise and small favors on military people and veterans. Recent 20-state research co-authored by a University of Florida law professor, Christopher Peterson, found higher concentrations of payday loan offices in ZIP codes near military bases than in comparable civilian communities. Soldiers, especially young ones, make delectable prey for those blood-suckers because their commanders will pressure them to pay up.

"All things being equal," Peterson told Stars and Stripes, "you're less likely to find a bank and more likely to find an instant lender near one of these bases."

Sen. Charley Clary, R-Destin, said he may amend his SB 2242 to exclude payday loans. That would make it a much better bill, but would still raise the question of why any arbitration agreement should be immune to court scrutiny unless it's genuinely voluntary. Many are not; it is difficult if not impossible to get a credit card or a consumer loan without one.

"Arbitration is no longer the province of sophisticated participants," remarked the authors of a Westlaw study that warned: "The prevalence of arbitration rules that subtly or more strongly tilt the playing field in the business's favor provides grounds for concern about how consumers actually fare in arbitration."

Shouldn't their sophisticated legislators do a little more to protect them?

Martin Dyckman's e-mail address is dyckman@sptimes.com

[Last modified April 17, 2005, 00:25:16]