Vote to retain justices is a vote for independent judiciary

Floridians will decide whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices, but they really will be voting on the future of an independent judiciary.

To the informed, the choice will be obvious: Three outstanding justices are on the ballot for Yes or No approval, and voters will be wise to retain Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente.

Not so obvious is the intensely partisan and well-funded campaign being waged to oust the justices, which would allow Gov. Rick Scott to appoint three new members of the seven-member court.

Of special concern in this election is that the state Republican Party took the unprecedented step of inserting partisan politics into the nonpartisan merit retention process when it urged a vote against the three justices.

That not only threatens to embroil the judiciary in partisan politics, it represents a blatant attempt to strip away the court's independence that has existed since corruption on the court led to a merit retention system in 1976.

Also troubling is that an outside group, Americans for Prosperity, funded by Kansas billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, is airing ads urging the defeat of the judges.

AN OUTSTANDING SYSTEM

The merit retention system strives to have the highest qualified judges appointed from a list recommended to the governor by a nine-member judicial nominating commission. Those appointed face an up or down retention vote in the first General Election that falls after they have served a year and every six years thereafter.

It should not be a vote on the court's decisions but rather a vote on whether the judges have the qualities to render fair and impartial rulings.

Merit retention is intended to allow voters to remove incompetent or corrupt judges, not to allow for the intimidation of judges by political forces or special interests.

If heavily financed partisan campaigns result in the ouster of justices, then every justice will be put on notice that unpopular rulings - such as against powerful special interests, legislators or the governor - could result in revenge being extracted in the next election.

Much of the motive driving the GOP opposition to these three justices stems from the court's ruling to remove three deceptively worded Legislature-proposed constitutional amendments from the 2010 ballot.

It is ironic that Republican leaders would seek to oust the court's only two women, one of whom is African-American, in the same election in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is seeking to increase his appeal to women and minorities.

Notably, these three justices are rated highly by the people who should know them best - lawyers. In a survey by The Florida Bar in which 7,800 lawyers with "considerable or limited knowledge of the judges" responded, these three got extraordinarily high marks.

For retention, 92 percent voted in favor for Lewis, 90 percent voted for Quince and 89 percent voted for Pariente.

THE IOWA EXPERIENCE

After conservative and religion-based groups ousted three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010 following a ruling overturning a law that barred same-sex marriage, The Florida Bar launched an education campaign to educate voters about merit retention.

The justices are barred from soliciting campaign contributions, but groups have formed to raise money and campaign on their behalf.

One group, called Democracy at Stake, is chaired by former Republican state Sen. Alex Villalobos, who says he fears that well-funded campaigns can oust justices over unpopular rulings if voters are not informed.

Allegations of corruption on the Supreme Court in the early 1970s forced the resignation of two justices, stained the legacy of another and led Florida voters to amend the constitution to implement the "merit" system of appointment and retention of appellate judges.

The system has worked well, largely because of the high caliber of people selected for the state's Districts Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. No justice has been removed by voters since merit retention was implemented.

Justices Quince, Lewis and Pariente have each faced two retention votes and handily won approval each time.

Now is not the time to politicize a good process.