Florida judges are fearful for their independence and, by implication, for their integrity. So say the findings of an anonymous survey conducted by the Tallahassee League of Women Voters.

It's no surprise, given how contemptuously some radically right-wing legislators have been talking and acting in response to rulings they don't like. Last year, they gave Gov. Jeb Bush the power to appoint all members of the judicial nominating commissions, a rash action openly devoted to politicizing the courts. That was supposed to be the end of it, but such people are never satisfied.

They now propose a constitutional amendment -- HJR 1, by Rep. Bruce Kyle, R-Fort Myers -- that would prostitute the judiciary to whatever prejudices and passions control the Legislature at a particular moment. Among other things:

The Legislature could create or repeal rules of court by simple majority vote. Currently, its power is limited to repealing rules, and then only by two-thirds vote.

The Legislature could create a special district court of appeal with statewide exclusive jurisdiction over a particular subject -- such as a court of criminal appeals modeled on Texas's infamous "death court," which has been an international disgrace.

Courts would be barred from hearing any dispute that is not a "case or controversy," a restriction that appears intended to prevent citizens from seeing relief before their rights are irreparably violated. This is extremely ominous in light of some current suggestions for police-state legislation.

The Legislature would be empowered to set a two-year limit on habeas corpus relief, dating from the final judgment or mandate on a direct appeal in a criminal case, no matter what compelling new evidence may turn up.

As interesting and disconcerting as the proposal itself is the conspicuously unusual way in which House Speaker Tom Feeney is handling it. He has referred the measure to only one committee, the Committee on State Administration, chaired by Rep. Fred Brummer, a like-minded Republican from Orange County who was responsible for last year's assault on the nominating commissions. Brummer is not a lawyer, and neither is anyone else on the committee, whose actual if unofficial responsibility is to promote bad bills for Feeney.

By tradition and logic, any legislation having such potential impact on the courts should have been referred to the Committee on Judicial Oversight, where Chairman Larry Crow of Palm Harbor and eight of the other 11 members happen to be lawyers. That Crow's committee would be much less receptive to such poisonous legislation is no excuse for Feeney to circumvent the proper process. His disrespect for the integrity of the House is concomitant with his disrespect for the integrity of the courts.

What Feeney actually expects to accomplish is less obvious. There is no appetite for such subversion in the Senate, which yielded on the nominating commissions last spring only after Feeney threatened to block everything the Senate wanted. Even bullying has its limits, one of them being the three-fifths vote necessary to submit any constitutional amendment to the voters, and it's doubtful that HJR 1 could get that even in the House. On the other hand, it will be a redistricting session, a time when everything typically is for sale or rent.

Feeney's real scheme may be simply to intimidate the Supreme Court, which has or will have on its docket such major cases of political interest as parental consent for abortion, the big business relief act that was misrepresented as "tort reform," and the constitutionality of Bush's school voucher plan. So long as HJR 1 is lurking on the agenda, with a spike not yet through its heart, honest judges will have reason to fear it.

And so will every resident of Florida. Such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and protection from arbitrary or secret arrest are not necessarily the first to vanish in the advent of tyranny. As often, the courts are the first target. Control the judiciary, and the rest comes easy.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page