The Florida Bar

Florida Bar News

June 1, 2015 Letters

Letters

Letters

Bush v. Gore

With all due respect given to Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding, the reality of the decision in Bush v. Gore by a 5-4 margin rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively disenfranchised the presidential voters in our state of Florida for the year of 2000. (Harding shares some backstory from Bush v. Gore, May 1 News.)

The disparity of interpretations of this decision will remain forever; however, in my personal opinion, Bush v. Gore was the beginning of the impending end of our democratic government in the United States of America.

Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush. The official presidential general election results were Gore 50,999,897 and Bush 50,456,002.

Without giving a litany of all the subsequent decisions by a 5-4 margin in our U.S. Supreme Court, it is sufficient to say that democracy, as it is defined in our English language, has been eviscerated and undermined.

I, for one American-born citizen for 87 years, am proud to be in this country, and I do wholeheartedly agree with the bumper sticker that said “Election 2000, what a civics lesson.”

However, with respect for everyone’s personal opinion, I do not think “that confirms the Supreme Court did well.”

Russell Lee Johnson
St. Petersburg

Remote Viewing of Files

As general counsel for Chips Shore, Manatee County clerk of the circuit court, the pilot office for remote visibility of court records, and as a member of the Access Governance Board, I feel that it is important to clarify some misunderstandings that may occur once remote viewing becomes available in more counties as the year progresses.

Redaction of court records is a cause for concern for many. It is important to remember that in no way does remote viewing deny constitutional access to court records. Remote viewing allows for the convenience of viewing court records without having to travel to the courthouse. In order to provide this convenience and balance the privacy interests of parties, the redaction of confidential information is necessary to guard against such things as identity theft. Remote viewing takes place on a known website. Clerks are charged with protecting confidential information within a court file.

There are three levels of confidentiality within a court file: case type; document type; and information contained within the documents that are placed inside of a court file. The security matrix for remote viewing protects court records at both the case and document types. Necessary redactions are inclusive of this security model. All users who choose to view a court file remotely via a clerk’s website will see a file with the legal redactions in place. Any information that would be necessary to redact in order to protect a client’s information, such as a Social Security number, would be redacted. The remote viewing capability of a court file was not intended to replace case management systems utilized by those users working directly within the court system.

The remote viewing of a court file is not about the constitutional right to access a file; rather, it is about the convenience of remote visibility. This model has been in use in Manatee County for 10 years and has proven to be acceptable to all users who wish to remotely view court records.

Angelina Colonneso
Bradenton

News in Photos