Home › Elections 2008 › Election 2008 Endorsements
Editorial: Election 2008: Judicial retention - Those who know say ‘yes’
More Election 2008 Endorsements
- Commentary: Daily News election endorsement summary
- Editorial: Obama offers Americans what country needs now
- Editorial: Election 2008: Lee County Sheriff - Despite rally misjudgment, Scott is clearly best for Lee
Tell us about it
- What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
- Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
- Upload photos & videos
- More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy [?]
We come down to the finish line for the Nov. 4 general election, for which early voting starts Monday, and there is a gap in our editorial board interview and endorsement process.
We covered all the bases except the appellate judges and Florida Supreme Court justices.
They do not campaign. Their terms and names on the ballot rotate as part of a system called merit retention. Voters are asked to say yes, they should be kept on, or no, they shouldn’t.
In the rare event that voters say no, the successor is appointed by the governor.
The system is missing a thorough, comprehensive review of these jurists’ official conduct or how they rule on important issues.
We know of no news media organization in Florida that conducts such analyses. Not good, but you deserve to know that.
The saving grace in each judicial election cycle is a survey of members conducted by the Florida Bar.
Do practicing attorneys have vested interests? Yes.
Still, among such a large group, if a jurist were out of line, would that bubble up? Yes.
The Bar poll gives high grades to the lone Florida Supreme Court justice, Charles T. Wells, up for merit retention. He gets a 91 percent approval rating.
Attorneys also give high marks for the appeal court judges based in Lakeland who handle cases from our area. Those judges and their favorable ratings are: Chris Altenbernd, 94 percent; Carolyn K. Fulmer, 88 percent; Morris Silberman, 90 percent; and James Whatley, 87 percent.
Such votes of confidence are food for thought from people who petition these members of the bench and win only half the time.
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
I voted NOT to retain the judges
because I believe turn-over will encourage the system to be fair and cost-effective.
Legislators, state attorneys, police, sheriff, and judges, cause unintended consequences from non-violent victim-less crimes.
#1 Posted by jacktanner on October 18, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Turn-over judges are keeping Gregory Capehart in jail. Three judges ago Judge Tepper vacated his death sentence; his is a six-box case and it takes attorneys and a judge months to become familiar with it. Then the judge is rotated out and a new one comes in with no knowledge of the case.
Since it's low on the priority list, nothing gets read. New attorneys are appointed by the court who have the same problem: unwillingness or lack of urgency to read the whole case. Neither the man nor his family has money to push the case.
Meanwhile Gregory languishes in jail four years after his death sentence is rescinded due to the DNA test exonerating him by proving he was not at the scene of the crime against the raped and killed Marlene Reeves. He's been in jail for over 21 years for crimes he did not commit.
Don't vote judges out. They're different than politicians. Just get the bad ones.
#2 Posted by CalebWilliams on October 20, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)