Litigation

Tea Party Group Seeks Ouster of Two FL Justices

By Peter Hardin

A campaign linked to the tea party has announced a drive in Florida to deny re-election to two state Supreme Court justices in retention elections this year, in response to a controversial court ruling.

It appeared to be the latest in a series of higher-profile retention (up-or-down) retention elections that have emerged across the country, a trend spotlighted by a recent Justice at Stake and Brennan Center for Justice report.

Florida Justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry cast votes with the majority in a 5-2 decision that removed Amendment 9 from the ballot, because the ballot summary was inaccurate, according to an Associated Press article. The proposed Amendment 9 would have voiced opposition to President Obama’s health care overhaul and, the AP said, could have prevented a similar state law.

The Restore Justice campaign will push for removal of the two justices in retention elections. A press release about the campaign said, “These justices sided with the liberal political agenda of four Florida citizens having close ties to the Obama administration who filed suit in late June, alleging that three statements (comprising a mere twenty words) in the ballot summary were misleading, to thereby disenfranchise millions of Floridians desiring to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the legislature?s proposed amendment.”

The statement added, “The campaign believes that such overt judicial activism, usurping the constitutional amendment process by abusing its powers as a ‘gatekeeper’ to deny citizens of their right to vote on these measures constitutes bad behavior. Such actions warrant the removal of Labarga and Perry through a ‘No’ vote this November.”

A separate Associated Press article, meanwhile, looked at the trend toward contentious retention elections with this opening paragraph, datelined Topeka, Kansas:

“Intense battles over who controls the courts have migrated this year to states where Supreme Court justices have been insulated for decades from the rough-and-tumble of politics, alarming groups that promote judicial independence.”

The article was entitled, “Right’s angst heats normally cold judicial races.” It quoted Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake:

“We are seeing more states become battlegrounds for court wars.”

“It’s going to get nastier, more expensive and rawer, with each cycle.”

The article also reported that some conservative groups are unhappy with what they consider judicial activism, and they think the courts are not accountable.

“There’s a lot of concern and unrest in the country, and people want to force these issues,” said Tom Brejcha. He is president of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, an anti-abortion law firm.

To learn more about appointment and retention election systems for choosing judges, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on September 28, 2010 (boomark / email).