Editorial: Don’t make justice more difficult in Florida
We spent most of Friday listening to a parade of prosecutors, public defenders, lawmakers and others deeply familiar with Florida’s judicial system talk about the future structure of courts in this state. Yet we didn’t hear a single person say: “You know what Florida needs? Courts that are more difficult to access, less in-touch with local law enforcement and communities’ needs, and often unfamiliar with the people they serve.”
That’s because every single person who testified in Orlando Friday said they opposed House Speaker Paul Renner’s plan to wrong-size Florida’s sprawling expanse into five giant judicial circuits (down from 20) that would strip control of local courts from a vast number of state residents.
That doesn’t mean they were singing from the same hymnal. In fact, the speakers offered a wide array of arguments against this plan, including direct rebuttals to assumptions that court consolidation could lead to more efficient, uniform courts, improved economies of scale and increased trust and confidence in the judiciary.
So many roads to ‘no’
Many talked about how difficult it would be to maintain good relationships with local law enforcement, including State Attorney Harold Pryor, who oversees the circuit that covers Broward County. Defense attorneys from across the state, including many elected public defenders, echoed that challenge. Others talked about the time and effort it would take for one elected state attorney, public defender or chief judges to stay in touch with hundreds of workers spread across hundreds of miles. Matthew Metz, the elected public defender from the 7th Judicial Circuit anchored in Daytona Beach, described the logistical nightmare of getting offices with differing software systems and policies to work on the short timeline Renner seems to be pushing.
Many from Florida’s rural counties spoke compellingly of the likelihood that their own, more conservative policies would be overwritten if their smaller circuits were swept into the corners of circuits dominated by large, urban counties.
Yet they were in solidarity with those whose territory included some of Florida’s bluest demographics — including those who called this plan out for what it appears to be: An attempt to re-draw jurisdictional lines in a way that shifts judicial power toward the right wing , even in their communities where the majority of residents favor more progressive court policies. In other words, gerrymandering nearly half of Florida’s voters out of the chance to vote for prosecutors whose values match their own.
And many Orange County attorneys and residents didn’t hesitate to express their ire over Gov. Ron DeSantis’ peremptory (and probably illegal) firing of State Attorney Monique Worrell, elected from the circuit that covers Orange and Osceola counties.
Early in the hearing, state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, D-Orlando, expressed her strong opposition to the plan. But the testimony of her twin sister, Ida V. Eskamani, was even more heartfelt: She described what it was like to work closely with Worrell’s office and law enforcement as a victim of strong-arm robbery, and the personal connection she felt would be unlikely in a larger circuit.
Again and again, the same themes emerged: Voters in different parts of Florida expect different things from their elected court leaders.
Courts have other problems
Nobody is pretending Florida’s courts are perfect. They are overburdened and underfunded, and many residents already have to travel too far to meet with prosecutors or defense attorneys, resolve civil cases or untangle family legal matters like estates and divorces. Even with those burdens, however, elected state attorneys, public defenders and judges across the state work hard to protect the rule of law, while tailoring policies — such as special court programs for veterans, people struggling with addiction or those with mental-health problems — that their communities want and value.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers can’t claim that court operations are in any way wasteful. In fact, Florida’s judicial branch pays for itself (through court fees, fines and other revenue) with enough left over for the Legislature to sweep into its own coffers.
After Friday’s public hearing in Orlando, we must say this: The committee members seem to be handling their job with courtesy and grace, even though by now they must have heard every possible reason under the sun to grab a Sharpie, scrawl “BAD IDEA IS BAD” across a piece of scrap paper and shove it into Renner’s mailbox as their official report.
We also have to give Renner credit for examining his plan so thoroughly, rather than just ramming it through with little notice or forethought. Finally, we hope Renner shows enough grace to listen to the wide array of court leaders across the state who took the time to speak up.
That’s in marked contrast to the plan rammed through the Legislature last year that expanded the number of appellate courts from five to six. (How would that even work out, when Florida has to divide five trial-court circuits among six appellate courts?)
But when you have conservatives and progressives, prosecutors and defense attorneys, private lawyers and former court workers, coming up with so many arguments against his proposal — it should be enough to convince Renner, or anyone, that this bad idea is, indeed, bad.
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick. Contact us at insight@orlandosentinel.com
