Early voting has started, and election day is not far off, so here are some thoughts, in the second and shortest t of three (!) parts, on the upcoming election. But some of them are not long…
Part 1: Federal and State non-judicial offices and state referendums
Part 2: Judicial elections and judicial retention elections.
Part 3: Coral Gables Commission & Miami-Dade County referendums (coming soon)
People are usually most interested in what a local law prof thinks of the judicial elections. In part this is because info about them is hard to find – as I’ve discovered personally since spending more time at home due to partial immunocompromise.
Unlike most law professors I know, I support the idea of judicial elections at the state level as a reasonable democratic check on what I believe should be the expansive power of judges to interpret the state and federal constitutions.
As I’ve often said before, if it were up to me, I’d have the executive branch pick judges with legislative confirmation, followed by a California-style retention election every few years in which there would be an up or down vote on the incumbent. If the vote was down, the executive would pick a new judge. It seems to me that the right question is “has this judge done a good (enough) job” — something voters might be able to figure out — rather than asking voters to try to guess from electoral statements which of two or more candidates might be the best judge.
Florida’s system uses appointment plus retention elections for Supreme Court Justices and District Court of Appeal Judges, but not for trial courts. The Governor can appoint judges to fill vacancies between elections, but otherwise those jobs are straight up elected, so a judicial election pits one or more challengers against the incumbent unless, lacking opposition, the incumbent wins reelection automatically; many trial judges were indeed unopposed this year. There are also open seats when the incumbent retires.
My recommendations below are based on:
- My personal view that I will vote for an incumbent judge unless there’s reason to believe he/she is doing a bad job.
- After supporting incumbents, my other rule of thumb in sizing up candidates before even getting to the details of biography and practice experience is that in all but the rarest cases of other important life experience we ought to require at least ten years of legal experience from our lawyers before even considering them as judges. Fifteen years is better. I will very rarely support a judicial candidate fewer than ten years out of law school. It just isn’t long enough to get the experience and practical wisdom it takes to be a judge.
- I am less and less reliant on endorsements and editorials, as the quality doesn’t seem reliable.
- And oh yes, I read local blogs and listen to gossip too. Except this year, gossip is scarce, since I’m not leaving the house much due to immunocompromise.
All registered voters in Miami-Dade County get to vote on these judges, regardless of party affiliation.
After all that, this post is actually fairly short!
Justice of the Supreme Court
I’m not one who jumps at the gun to vote against retaining judges and justices, even very conservative ones. There are three things that might get to vote not to retain: ethics issues, an utter lack of humanity, or failure to adhere to precedent or otherwise undermine the rule of law. The last is trickiest for Supreme Court justices, since there can be legitimate occasions to overturn precedent, for very just cause.
Alas, Justice Carolos G. Muñiz fails the third prong in spades. It’s not even close. Sad to say, this is a partisan, not a fair judge. All the evidence you need (but not all there is) can be found in two votes in favor of gerrymandered districts in the face of a recent state constitutional Fair Districts amendment designed to prevent it. But DeSantis and Trump wanted an unfair advantage so Justice Muñiz and his other DeSantis-appointed colleagues delivered. The maps were designed, inter alia, to force Broward Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jared Moskowitz to run in highly changed districts.
I’ve been suspicious of Muñiz since early in his term as he formed part of a majority bent on overturning decades of decisions by his more liberal predecessors. It’s a political court. Maybe you like that. But you should draw the line at courts drawing electoral lines to undermine democracy. Vote NO on retaining Justice Carlos G. Muñiz.
I’ll say that again: Vote NO on retaining Justice Carlos G. Muñiz.
DCA Retention Elections
The liberal line on the five DCA retention elections is that all should go, if for no better reason than Ron DeSantis or Rick Scott appointed them. I don’t agree: as I said above, I’m for keeping judges, even conservative ones, if they are coloring between the lines.
In any case the ‘throw them all out’ argument only works if you think you’ll get better ones. I suppose if you think if David Jolly wins he’d appoint better judges than Byron Donalds there’s some sense in this; if not, though, there really isn’t. And if judges are going to be subject to dismissal even on good behavior, it makes it harder to recruit the best nominees.
FWIW I’ve endorsed Gordo three times in the past. I endorsed Lobree, Logue, and Miller previously also. I don’t know as much as Gooden, but in none of these cases do I know of any reason why the judge should not be retained. If this costs me my status as a progressive, so be it. I’m voting to retain all five.
Circuit Judge 11th Judicial Circuit
Group 5
As I have explained previously should NOT vote for Segura. Vote for “Marty” McNeil whose record suggests he’ll do fine.
Group 69
As between Jones-Peabody and Baez, I prefer Jones-Peabody. Baez is credible but has purely civil experience. I didn’t endorse in the first round because I was torn between Jones-Peabody and the candidate who came in third. As between these two, it’s a much easier choice.
