Board studies judicial term limits legislation
Board studies judicial term limits legislation
Proposals to send a constitutional amendment to voters next year to set 12-year term limits for Florida’s appellate judiciary are being studied by the Board of Governors’ Legislation Committee.
Shortly after House Speaker-Designate Richard Corcoran, R-Land O’ Lakes, in September publicly called for 12-year term limits for all state judges, separate measures were filed in the House and Senate calling for a constitutional amendment imposing the term limits on the appellate bench. Rep. John Wood, R-Winter Haven, filed HJR 197 and Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast, filed SJR 322. (See story in the November 15 Bar News. )
“There’s been a lot of conversation about that in my circuit and I imagine in your circuits as well,” Legislation Committee Chair Michael Tanner told the Board of Governors at its October 16 meeting.
“The committee discussed this at length, and it is our consensus that we are not going to recommend any position be taken today on this issue. We want to look at it further, and we want to hear from our constituents. We want to hear from the sections, the Young Lawyers Division, and from the Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges,” Tanner continued.
“Then, hopefully, we’re going to come back with a recommendation on two things in December [at the board’s next meeting ]. One is if this is a matter that we can and should take a positon on, and that may not be as clear cut as it might seem. At the end of that is the actual position we would take. We’ll be back to you in December with more on this issue.”
The Senate proposal has been referred to the Judiciary, Ethics and Elections, and Rules committees, while the House measure was referred to the Civil Justice Subcommittee and the Judiciary and Appropriations committees.
Both measures would prohibit any DCA judge or Supreme Court justice who has served two full terms from seeking merit retention for an additional term. Both also are effective upon passage by voters and originally applied to incumbent judges and justices. A revised House bill filed in October and approved by the Civil Justice Subcommittee stipulated the amendment would not apply to current judges and justices.
