Despite favoring abortion ban, court showed it’s not beholden to Florida GOP’s agenda | Opinion

Court watchers can now breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Florida Supreme Court’s April 1 rulings that will let the voters this fall decide the fate of two proposed amendments to the state constitution.

Amendment 3 would alter state laws to legalize the use of recreational marijuana for people 21 or older, even though weed would still be illegal under federal law. The more controversial of the two proposals, which will be listed on the ballot as Amendment 4, would establish a constitutional guarantee of abortion rights.

The abortion amendment will be of heightened interest because the court separately ruled that the state constitution’s privacy provisions do not protect abortion rights, as a more liberal court had ruled in the past, clearing the way for a law limiting abortions to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. That new ruling also clears the deck for an even stricter abortion law imposing a six-week limit to take effect on May 1.

Why are the ballot rulings a relief? Because the Florida Supreme Court’s role had become a topic of intense curiosity around the state capital after the retirements of long-serving justices appointed when the Democrats ruled Florida. That allowed Gov. Ron DeSantis to stock the court with conservatives approved by the Federalist Society.

A test for the court

In particular, court watchers wondered whether the court would assert its independence from partisan political pressures or rubber-stamp the Florida Republican Party’s long stymied conservative agenda, as the legislature notably did during DeSantis’ first term.

Turns out, the court got it right by letting the ballot measures move forward, despite vocal objections from DeSantis and, in particular, from Attorney General Ashley Moody, who argued unpersuasively that the ballot summaries for each of the amendments would mislead the voters.

One reason the GOP tried to block these proposals from becoming election-year issues is the fear that they’ll boost the turnout of women and young voters who, polls suggest, are not fans of Donald Trump.

The GOP’s concern is that a large turnout by highly motivated voters not only could affect the outcome of the Trump vs. Joe Biden race for Florida’s electoral votes, which had looked like a sure win for Trump, but also the down-ballot races for legislative seats and local offices, which are now mostly in the Republicans’ hands.

Justices’ philosophy

As for the court’s ruling allowing the abortion law to take effect, it’s in keeping with judicial conservatives’ general philosophy of letting legislators legislate unless they violate an explicit provision found in the text of the constitution. Construing the constitution’s privacy provision to legalize abortion was arguably a stretch.

The current court’s conservative judicial philosophy precludes a previous practice wherein the liberal majority sometimes invented reasons to carry out the agenda of a Florida Democratic Party beholden to two of its key constituencies: personal injury lawyers (the financial wing) and teachers and most other public employee unions (the Election Day foot soldiers).

During the Democrats’ decades of control, the court discovered a previously unnoticed constitutional provision forcing state and local governments to engage in collective bargaining with their employees. Taxpayers are still feeling the impact.

Moreover, by giving the personal injury bar one victory after another, the court’s liberal majority created a legal system that has caused Floridians to pay some of the nation’s highest insurance rates. Worse, in an egregiously erroneous ruling, the liberal court invalidated then-Gov. Jeb Bush’s initial attempt to provide vouchers to students assigned to failing schools. Fortunately, Florida has subsequently become a leader in school choice.

As for the two amendments the court has allowed to go before the voters, approving that step does not mean the court approves the amendments’ provisions or the possible consequences of their passage.

As the campaign season heats up this summer, supporters and opponents of these high-profile amendments and the other ballot proposals will state their case. Voters, potentially distracted by the Trump-Biden noise, should take the time to inform themselves on all of them before they vote.

Robert F. Sanchez, of Tallahassee, is a former member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. He writes for the Herald’s conservative opinion newsletter, Right to the Point. It’s weekly, and it’s free. To subscribe, go to miamiherald.com/righttothepoint.