Seizing The Florida Legislature Through Sleaze And Corruption
October 5, 2009
What do you get when you cross two organizations - one sleazy, the other corrupt? Answer: A new redistricting scheme for Florida called FairDistrictsFlorida.org!
According to Sunday’s Orlando Sentinel, some of Florida’s top trial lawyers (whose lobby arm admitted to sending out a racist mailer) in a Florida senate race) and ACORN (enough said) have teamed up to try to seize the Florida legislature from the Republicans. Since they can’t seem to win at the ballot box, they’re spending big $$ to influence the redistricting process, hiding behind the veil of nonpartisanship of course. That act has grown so old even the mainstream media smirks these days, with the Sentinel reporting that “Democrats and left-leaning groups have done the heavy financial lifting so far.”
The goal is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to hamstring the legislature, which must draw up new state House and Senate districts once the 2010 Census is completed. ACORN was supposed to be a “partner” in collecting data for the 2010 Census, but that partnership was severed last month after ACORN employees were caught on tape advising investigators posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to dodge tax laws.
Census Director Robert Groves said ACORN’s participation “may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts.” Looks like ACORN hasn’t given up on trying to influence the census and redistricting - they’re just attempting to do it through the back door.
ACORN and the Florida trial lawyers should slither back into the swamps where they belong.
Florida Black Caucus Slams Trial Bar Over “Racially Charged” Mailer
September 29, 2009
I guess I wasn’t the only one who found the Florida trial lawyers association’s latest mea culpa hopelessly lame. State Senator Gary Siplin, Chairman of the Florida Legislative Black Caucus recently fired off a letter condemning a sleazy, racist direct mail piece “created, approved and funded” by trial bar that tried to scare away voters in the September Republican state Senate primary with images of Black Panthers and armed thugs.
“The members of the Caucus find the mailing to be deplorable and represents the very worst nature of political campaigning.”
Scott Carruthers, executive director of the trial lawyers lobby, feigned outrage after the fact, even as the group tried desperately to hide their involvement. To his great credit, even though the groups have been allies in the past, Senator Siplin wasn’t buying it:
“It is obvious from the mailer that the FJA, who created, approved and funded this mailer has racially biased proclivities that are manifested in their thinking and actions. There as no need for FJA to invoke these racial images in an overwhelming Republican and non-minority district. [Hopefully Siplin didn't mean to imply the images would be OK in a Democrat or minority district] Therefore, it is our strong desire for FJA to continue to uphold its integrity [if any] and clean house within its association of anyone who spearheaded and/or had any involvement with this controversial mailer …” [emphasis mine]
No word yet from the trial bar about how the house cleaning is going.
Trial Lawyers In Florida Finally Fess Up To Race-Baiting Sleazeball Tactics
September 25, 2009
Florida’s trial lawyers association has finally admitted it was behind a sleazy, racist direct mail piece that tried to scare voters away from the polls in a state Senate race by warning that “armed thugs” and Black Panthers planned to harass them. The Orlando Sentinel has the whole reprehensible story, complete with the trial bar’s pathetic mea culpa.
The executive director of the Florida trial lawyers association, Scott Carruthers, admitted the group’s political operatives approved the piece and paid $69,000 to distribute it to 88,000 homes. Carruthers called the mailer “shameful” and faulted anonymous staffers for “fail[ing] to object” to its racist message.
Nice try, but the apology rings hollow. All along, the trial lawyers lobby tried to hide its attempts to slime candidate John Thrasher, who led the fight for tort reform when he was House Speaker. Wealthy trial lawyers funneled money to a front group called Conservative Citizens for Justice to shield their identities, as I reported in my 9/8 post. Then, after Thrasher won the September 15 primary, the trial lawyers association tried to hush up its involvement by “ignoring a reporter’s requests for information on the flier,” taking a full week to finally acknowledge the group’s complicity in the sleaze campaign.
According to news reports, right after the primary, the trial lawyers lobby “defiantly” said it was trying to “send a message to other candidates in 2010 not to push further tort-reform legislation.” Perhaps it’s time for Florida legislators and Florida voters to “defiantly” inform the trial bar they won’t be cowed by sleazy, racist attempts to trash courageous public servants who believe Florida’s judicial system should serve the people, not the trial bar.
Trial Lawyers Rise From The Swamps In Florida
September 8, 2009
A gang of Florida trial lawyers has risen from the swamps and are wielding their wallets to influence a state Senate primary, turning the campaign into a sleaze pit in the process. According to the Jacksonville Observer, at least three separate trial lawyer-financed groups are targeting former House Speaker John Thrasher, who is vying for the Republican nomination to Florida’s District 8 Senate seat.
Stop Tax Waste, Inc. (whose financing comes in part from trial lawyers); Conservative Citizens for Justice (led by the past president of the state trial lawyers association); and the Florida Justice Association (the new name of the trial lawyers lobby) have all launched TV ad campaigns to slime Thrasher and ensure the outcome of the race suits their preferences. It’s interesting that none of the front groups bankrolling the ads mention the word “lawyers” much less “trial lawyers.” I guess they figure their profession has become so radioactive even the mere mention of their name might boomerang on their candidate of choice.
Too bad Florida voters can’t sue them for fraud because that is exactly what they are committing in this campaign.
Thrasher is a devoted advocate for legal reform and worked closely with former governor Jeb Bush to pass needed reforms during his tenure as speaker.
Trial lawyers have long memories and intend to destroy the career of an excellent public servant. Just like the destroy the reputations of honest play-by-the-rules small businesses. It’s a shame, but that’s politics today.
NAACP Says “Specter Of Racial Discrimination” Has Been Raised By Florida “Merit” Board
April 28, 2009
Did Florida’s judicial nominating commission discriminate against minority candidates after bypassing three “well-qualified” African Americans to fill a vacancy on the state’s Fifth District Court of Appeals? Florida’s NAACP is certainly concerned. In a blistering Amicus Brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court, the NAACP charged that “the specter of racial discrimination has been raised” by the commission’s actions and argued that the commission’s secret deliberations “fail to provide any measure of accountability in the event of misconduct or discrimination.”
Explosive charges indeed – and yet another example of how “merit” selection schemes have failed to keep politics out of judicial selection, while turning the process of picking judges into a clubby, insider’s game with no public oversight.
A good summary of the battle du jour can be found in the Orlando Sentinel, but here’s the gist: Back in December, the Fifth Judicial Nominating Commission sent Gov. Charlie Crist a list of six nominees that failed to include any minority candidates. Gov. Crist asked the commission to reconsider its list given its professed commitment to diversity on the bench, noting that at least three well-qualified African Americans had applied, including two sitting circuit court judges. The commission has refused and the retiring judge whose vacancy must be filled wants the Florida Supreme Court to order Gov. Crist to pick a name from the original list.
While the governor can suspend a commission member for misconduct (like discriminating against African American nominees), this is a useless check against abuse because the governor is locked out of the smoke-filled room along with everyone else. As the NAACP put it:
“At present, the Governor has no authority to access information with respect to potential misconduct or discrimination by the JNCs to aid in his determination as to whether suspension or removal is warranted…. Accordingly, the Florida NAACP respectfully requests that this Honorable Court exercise its Article V powers and amend the JNC rules of procedure to allow a governor to obtain the requisite documents and transcripts to investigate misconduct or discrimination within the nominating process.”
In Tennessee, Missouri and now Florida, proponents of government transparency and public accountability are pushing for judicial nominating commissions to come out from behind closed doors. After being called out by the Florida NAACP, isn’t it time for even the most diehard “merit” selection advocates to give up on the idea that our judges should be chosen in secret?
NAACP “Considering Legal Action” Against Florida “Merit” Panel To Gain Access to “Secret Deliberations”
February 18, 2009
“Merit” selection is under fire again in Florida – this time by civil rights leaders at the NAACP. An AP story in the Orlando Sentinel reports that the NAACP is “considering legal action” against Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal judicial nominating commission. According to the article, NAACP lawyer Chuck Hobbs
“… is considering legal action to support [Governor] Crist’s effort to appoint minority judges to the 5th District Court of Appeals….Crist asked the panel to send him a more diverse list, but it refused.
“The first step would be to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on whether Crist can replace entire nominating commissions, Hobbs said. He said the NAACP then may sue to obtain records and other information about the panel’s secret deliberations …”
The same article also reports that Governor Crist is “getting pressure from opposite ends of the political spectrum over a pending appointment” to the Florida Supreme Court. Interest groups lobbying Crist include the NAACP, Florida Family Action and the National Rifle Association.
So much for “merit” selection taking politics out of the judicial selection system.
How “Merit” Selection Restricts Diversity On State Courts
January 29, 2009
Florida State Senator Tony Hill – a Democrat who serves as minority whip – weighs in with an oped in the Tallahassee Democrat on the troubling lack of diversity in judicial candidates selected by Florida’s judicial nominating commissions. As Sen. Hill points out, Gov. Charlie Crist has twice sent back lists from the nominating commission for the 5th District Court of Appeals and recently rejected the Supreme Court nominating commissions list of nominees – all because commissioners failed to deliver a slate of candidates that reflected Florida’s diversity. As Sen. Hill wrote:
“Well-qualified minorities are applying to these open judicial posts, but few are making it past the supposedly apolitical nominating commissions, leaving one to wonder what the commissioners’ motivations may be. If the governor himself continually calls for and asks for more diversity in his choices, why isn’t he being listened to?”
Of course, since the commissioners’ meetings are conducted in secret, with absolutely no public accountability and no record of the proceedings, their “motivations” will forever remain a mystery, not just to the people of Florida, but to state political leaders like Sen. Hill. Sen. Hill makes an impassioned plea to the commissioners set to meet tomorrow to compile a list of nominees to fill another Supreme Court vacancy to send Gov. Crist candidates that are “a better selection of the people of Florida.”
It’s unfortunate that an honorable public servant like Sen. Hill has to turn to the oped pages to influence the secret selectors of Florida’s high court judges, but I understand his plight.
Here’s another idea: Why not let the commission continue its secret meetings and allow it to send the governor a list of recommended nominees reflecting the combined wisdom of this august body; but permit the governor to nominate any candidate from the vast pool of Florida residents qualified to serve on the courts? That way Gov. Crist would be accountable because the final selection was his and his alone. If Sen. Hill or any other legislator had questions about the governor’s “motivations” or worried about the lack of diversity on the courts, he could take his case directly to the people, who could express their preferences at the ballot box.
Surely this is a better way to ensure that Florida’s rich diversity is reflected on the courts, rather than pleading with the all-powerful commissioners before they disappear behind closed doors.
The Politics of “NonPolitical” Judicial Selection, Cont’d
January 5, 2009
Over the New Year’s holiday, Florida Governor Charlie Crist selected Judge Jorge Labarga to fill a vacancy on the state’s Supreme Court. I’ll leave it to others to judge the impact this selection will have on Florida’s high court – here’s a good summary from Point of Law – but one fact is crystal clear: The idea that “merit” selection removes politics from the judicial selection process is an utter farce.
As American Courthouse readers will remember, Gov. Crist rejected the initial slate submitted by Florida’s judicial nominating commission because he felt it wasn’t sufficiently diverse – a move which earned both praise and condemnation in the media. After a bitter, closed-door fight, the commission sent Gov. Crist an expanded slate.
This decision kicked off another round of very public political blood-letting. One commissioner (Arturo Alvarez) trashed his fellow commissioners for allowing a second vote to add more candidates. The St. Petersburg Times attacked one nominee as “a [Jeb] Bush acolyte” whose appointment “could make a mockery of the state’s judicial nominating process.” The Palm Beach Post was so irate by the commission’s action, it argued that nearly half the commission should resign in disgrace and suggested one nominee’s selection should be challenged in court. One group of legal bigwigs said the commission broke the law by sending the governor a new slate. Another group of lawyers responded with their own letter praising the commission and disparaging the first group.
Gov. Crist’s selection of Judge Labarga has not quelled the controversy.
Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post says Gov. Crist “partially redeemed himself by choosing Jorge Labarga,” while criticizing his two prior selections as “strong social conservatives.” Today’s Orlando Sentinel has an editorial arguing Florida needs “a less political way of selecting judges.” The paper seems to favor going back to the good old days (of 2000) when a single powerful special interest group – the Florida Bar – had more control over the nominating commission.
Giving one special interest group de facto power over who will sit on a state’s highest court might reduce public controversy, but it destroys public accountability. The real answer is to make every public official, including Supreme Court judges, accountable to the people they serve – namely, the voters. And the best system to ensure that accountability is democratic elections. After all, if “merit” selection can’t remove “politics” from the judicial selection process – and Judge Labarga’s tortured path to the high court settles that argument – what exactly is the basis for taking the radical step of denying citizens their right to choose who controls one-third of their state government?
So Much For Removing Politics From Judicial Selection
December 24, 2008
Proponents of “merit” selection – where a committee dominated by lawyers meets in secret to pick judges – always claim this scheme will remove filthy “politics” from the judicial selection process. Considering this system strips voters of their fundamental constitutional right to vote for their public servants on the bench, it’s a pretty thin argument – even if it were true.
But it’s not.
I’ve written before that “merit” selection just moves politics into the smoke-filled room, but it appears I’m wrong. In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist and the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission are engaged in a full-scale and very public political battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, with commissioners and members of the governor’s staff publicly trading barbs and special interest groups pondering whether the “fix” is in for the seat. Editorials in major Florida newspapers blare that “the commission’s credibility is gone” and fret that the whole matter represents “the worst kind of judicial politics.”
You can read my previous posts for background here, but the upshot is that the allegedly non-partisan commission tried to force a slate of nominees on Gov. Crist that he felt lacked diversity. The commission went back behind closed doors and, after a heated 5-4 vote, sent the governor a new list that included a Hispanic nominee, U.S. Navy General Counsel Frank Jimenez.
The vote didn’t sit well with commissioner Arturo Alvarez, who publicly trashed the decision to add Mr. Jimenez, saying the commission created the “perception that our choice are influenced by the governor…” (Heaven forbid that the legal poohbahs on the unelected commission should actually be accountable to someone.) The Palm Beach Post wants Mr. Jimenez’s selection (if it happens) to “be challenged in court as illegal” and, for good measure, says nearly half the commission should resign.
And this is the system that’s supposed to take “politics” out of judicial selection?
More Trouble With “Merit” Selection: Two Governors (And One AG) Blast Star Chamber Lists
December 5, 2008
Democratic Governor of New York David Paterson and Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Crist each blasted the slate of names handed to them by their respective judicial nominating commissions yesterday. New York and Florida utilize variations of the Star Chamber approach to choosing judges – where a small group led by lawyers determines who will sit on the bench.
Both Gov. Paterson and Gov. Crist attacked the lack of diversity among the list of hand-picked nominees.
“Florida’s diversity has been instrumental in the economic and cultural strength of our state, and that diversity should be reflected in every facet of our state’s government, including our judicial system.” — Governor Crist
“I’ve really got to wonder how this group would feel comfortable sending a list forward and not one of them represents half of the human race.” — Governor Paterson
I’m no fan of a quota system for picking judges, but both governors raise a profound point. Why should governors be restricted in their choice of judges by an unelected commission? There are literally hundreds of judges, lawyers, law professors and other legal experts in every state, reflecting a variety of backgrounds, races, genders, judicial philosophies, etc. Why shouldn’t governors be allowed to pick any qualified nominee, rather than have the candidate pool narrowed down to a handful by a tiny group that’s accountable to no one?
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo rightly concluded that the nominating committee’s action called into question the entire “merit” selection process:
“The governor should be able to consider men and qualified women. And to circumscribe and limit it to only men indicates something is wrong with either the process, the legislation or the way it was administered.”
Amen.