A Government Of Laws, Not Of Men
Alexander Hamilton
The law is binding on everyone -- no one is above the law -- including governors, legislators and judges. Circuit judges are obligated to be faithful to the law and not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
Term Limits For Judges
The President of the United States can serve only two four-year terms. Florida Senate and House members are term-limited.
Florida has not followed the federal model of life tenure for its judges. Yet currently our circuit and county court judges are NOT term-limited. Fla. Constitution, Article V, § 10. The term of both circuit and county court judges is six years. There is a mandatory retirement age of 70. Thus, for example, a circuit judge who was elected at the age of 35 could run for reelection six times before being required to retire at the age of 70.
If elected, Catherine W. Real will continue to support the following:
If elected, I will continue to support amending the Florida Constitution to subject Florida Circuit and County Court Judges to term limits
Catherine W. Real believes that our circuit and county court judges should be limited to one (1) eight-year term.
Why Limit Judges to Only One Term?
When judges are not subject to reelection campaigns, they need not solicit contributions from attorneys who appear before them or parties who may have interests in the outcome of the cases they would decide as judges.
While it is true that judicial experience is important to the efficient administration of justice, Catherine W. Real believes that there is a significant pool of exceptional legal talent in both the public and private sectors from which exceptional judges could be recruited. Ms. Real believes that term limits would add new vitality to the judiciary.
Other states have debated term limits for state court judges. Catherine W. Real would encourage similar discussions in Florida.
Florida has not followed the federal model of life tenure for its judges. Yet currently our circuit and county court judges are NOT term-limited. Fla. Constitution, Article V, § 10. The term of both circuit and county court judges is six years. There is a mandatory retirement age of 70. Thus, for example, a circuit judge who was elected at the age of 35 could run for reelection six times before being required to retire at the age of 70.
If elected, Catherine W. Real will continue to support the following:
If elected, I will continue to support amending the Florida Constitution to subject Florida Circuit and County Court Judges to term limits
Catherine W. Real believes that our circuit and county court judges should be limited to one (1) eight-year term.
Why Limit Judges to Only One Term?
When judges are not subject to reelection campaigns, they need not solicit contributions from attorneys who appear before them or parties who may have interests in the outcome of the cases they would decide as judges.
While it is true that judicial experience is important to the efficient administration of justice, Catherine W. Real believes that there is a significant pool of exceptional legal talent in both the public and private sectors from which exceptional judges could be recruited. Ms. Real believes that term limits would add new vitality to the judiciary.
Other states have debated term limits for state court judges. Catherine W. Real would encourage similar discussions in Florida.
TopBe Independent - A Strict No-Gift Rule
Florida's Supreme Court has said:
"The lack of bias and partiality is an essential prerequisite to service as a judicial officer."
"The impartiality of the trial judge must be beyond question."
"No other principle is more essential to the fair administration of justice than the impartiality of the presiding judge."
Inquiry re McMillan, 797 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2001).
Compensation for Circuit Judges:
The level of compensation of our judges is determined by the Florida Legislature. Circuit judges are currently paid $134,649 per year. Successful lawyers in private practice can earn significantly more. But when an attorney seeks to be a circuit judge, he or she knows the level of compensation and the limitations that the position places on his or her income potential.
If elected as Circuit Judge, Catherine W. Real will accept no gifts from anyone other than her immediate family
Current Law Permits Judges to Accept Gifts:
Current law permits judges to accept gifts. To see the legal circumstances under which judges can accept gifts:
See Canon 5D(5)
Judicial Canon 5D(5)(h) permits judges to accept gifts if "the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge; and, if its value, or the aggregate value in a calendar year of such gifts, bequests, favors, or loans from a single source, exceeds $100.00, the judge reports it in the same manner as the judge reports gifts under Section 6B(2)."
Current Law Requires Some Gifts to Judges to be Disclosed:
Annual gift reporting requirements of judges:
See Canon 6B(2)
Gifts. A judge shall file a public report of all gifts which are required to be disclosed under Canon 5D(5)(h) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The report of gifts received in the preceding calendar year shall be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics on or before July 1 of each year. A copy shall be filed simultaneously with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
The Problem:
Catherine W. Real believes that the independence and impartiality of a judge can be adversely affected by the receipt of gifts. It may be impossible to know whether one gift-giver could potentially come before the judge and whether disclosure of the gift solves the problem of perceived partiality. The better solution may be to prohibit gift giving, unless the donor is in the judge's immediate family.
Catherine W. Real's Position on Gifts: A Strict, No-Gift Rule
Catherine W. Real recognizes that judges, like everyone else, have friends who may wish to give the judge a well-intentioned gift. Even under those circumstances, she believes the appearance of partiality can be raised. The better practice is to refuse even nominal gifts, unless the gift donor is in the judge's immediate family.
If elected as circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will neither solicit nor accept any gifts from anyone other than her family. If elected, Catherine W. Real will emulate the conduct of one Hillsborough County judge would will not even permit anyone other than family to buy her a lunch.
Gift Reporting of Judges Should Be Available on the Internet
So long as the current law permits judges to receive gifts and so long as a judge must file a report of receipt of certain gifts with the Secretary of State annually, Catherine W. Real believes that these reports should be available to the public on the internet.
"The lack of bias and partiality is an essential prerequisite to service as a judicial officer."
"The impartiality of the trial judge must be beyond question."
"No other principle is more essential to the fair administration of justice than the impartiality of the presiding judge."
Inquiry re McMillan, 797 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2001).
Compensation for Circuit Judges:
The level of compensation of our judges is determined by the Florida Legislature. Circuit judges are currently paid $134,649 per year. Successful lawyers in private practice can earn significantly more. But when an attorney seeks to be a circuit judge, he or she knows the level of compensation and the limitations that the position places on his or her income potential.
If elected as Circuit Judge, Catherine W. Real will accept no gifts from anyone other than her immediate family
Current Law Permits Judges to Accept Gifts:
Current law permits judges to accept gifts. To see the legal circumstances under which judges can accept gifts:
See Canon 5D(5)
Judicial Canon 5D(5)(h) permits judges to accept gifts if "the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge; and, if its value, or the aggregate value in a calendar year of such gifts, bequests, favors, or loans from a single source, exceeds $100.00, the judge reports it in the same manner as the judge reports gifts under Section 6B(2)."
Current Law Requires Some Gifts to Judges to be Disclosed:
Annual gift reporting requirements of judges:
See Canon 6B(2)
Gifts. A judge shall file a public report of all gifts which are required to be disclosed under Canon 5D(5)(h) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The report of gifts received in the preceding calendar year shall be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics on or before July 1 of each year. A copy shall be filed simultaneously with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
The Problem:
Catherine W. Real believes that the independence and impartiality of a judge can be adversely affected by the receipt of gifts. It may be impossible to know whether one gift-giver could potentially come before the judge and whether disclosure of the gift solves the problem of perceived partiality. The better solution may be to prohibit gift giving, unless the donor is in the judge's immediate family.
Catherine W. Real's Position on Gifts: A Strict, No-Gift Rule
Catherine W. Real recognizes that judges, like everyone else, have friends who may wish to give the judge a well-intentioned gift. Even under those circumstances, she believes the appearance of partiality can be raised. The better practice is to refuse even nominal gifts, unless the gift donor is in the judge's immediate family.
If elected as circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will neither solicit nor accept any gifts from anyone other than her family. If elected, Catherine W. Real will emulate the conduct of one Hillsborough County judge would will not even permit anyone other than family to buy her a lunch.
Gift Reporting of Judges Should Be Available on the Internet
So long as the current law permits judges to receive gifts and so long as a judge must file a report of receipt of certain gifts with the Secretary of State annually, Catherine W. Real believes that these reports should be available to the public on the internet.
Financial Disclosure
A Judge's Annual Financial Disclosure Should Be Accessible On The Internet: Florida law requires all judges to make a public financial disclosure on an annual basis. Catherine W. Real believes that these financial disclosures should be accessible to the public on the internet.
A Judicial Candidates Financial Disclosure Should Also Be Accessible On The Internet: All judicial candidates are required to make public financial disclosure. Yet these documents are also not accessible on the internet. Catherine W. Real believes that all judicial candidate financial disclosures should be available for public inspection on the internet.
Catherine W. Real's Judicial Candidate Financial Disclosure: To see Catherine W. Real's "Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests", click here.
A Judicial Candidates Financial Disclosure Should Also Be Accessible On The Internet: All judicial candidates are required to make public financial disclosure. Yet these documents are also not accessible on the internet. Catherine W. Real believes that all judicial candidate financial disclosures should be available for public inspection on the internet.
Catherine W. Real's Judicial Candidate Financial Disclosure: To see Catherine W. Real's "Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests", click here.
Improve Public Perception Of Our Courts
An Independent and Impartial Judiciary:
A judge's decision should not be swayed by public opinion. As the Florida Supreme Court has said, "a judicial officer must fulfill his or her obligations to uphold the constitutional and statutory rights of the litigants before the court, notwithstanding that such decision may be unpopular with the community." In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77, 89 (Fla. 2003).
An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. The successful operation of our democracy is also conditioned upon the public perception that the courts provide an independent and impartial tribunal to resolve disputes and protect basic individual rights. Judicial independence and impartiality are vital to our state's civic health.
Trust in the People:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depositary of the public trust. -- Thomas Jefferson
Public Confidence: Thus, without the public's confidence, the judiciary's ability to do justice is compromised.
Next to doing right, the great object in the administration of justice should be to give public satisfaction. -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay
Sometimes, in the pressure of doing what judges have to do and running a tight ship in the courtroom and deciding tough issues, we might forget that, in the last analysis, it is, after all, the public we serve and that we do care how the courts are perceived generally. -- Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor
Public Perception of Our Courts in Hillsborough County: Judicial Scandals
The public's confidence in the judiciary of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Hillsborough County) has been heavily taxed in the not so distant past. Judicial scandal after judicial scandal was reported in the newspapers in the new century. The allegations were legion: one circuit judge was caught sneaking into a fellow judge's chambers after hours. A grand jury was convened to sort out culpability. Another judge, who was accused of sexually harassing four female colleagues, including two judges, resigned. After having being accused of having sex at the courthouse with a court bailiff, another circuit judge resigned. And there were other incidents.
Click here for press coverage of some of the allegations of judicial misconduct here in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit and click here to see Florida Supreme Court Order regarding Judge Robert H. Bonanno
Today's Challenges
Competent judges are hard-working, ethical and temperate. They control their courtrooms without having to engage in bullying, sarcasm, or hubris. They listen carefully to the evidence and strive to apply the law to the evidence received. Regrettably, the sins of a few judges, as shown by recent Judicial Qualifications Commission investigations, can adversely affect the public's perception of the entire court.
Some say that the past is the past . . . let it go and move on. Now is not the time to just "move on." Now is the time to reassess, identify strengths and weaknesses and develop a solid plan to remedy these weaknesses. A citizen has the right to enter public courtrooms and evaluate the judiciary
Catherine W. Real believes that the public's confidence in the courts is waning. Debates about the balance of power between the three branches of government and the role of federal and state courts in a democratic society have divided the nation. This schism was most evident during the recent confirmation hearings for the positions of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, many voters have little or no information about judicial candidates. We must remember that, except in cases where the governor has constitutional authority to fill vacancies by appointment, the public is empowered to elect the judiciary that serves in our county and circuit courts. Fla. Constitution, Article 5, § 10. The public should be given full access to information about our judicial candidates in order to make informed decisions.
Restoration of Public Confidence in Our Courts
To prevent further erosion of public confidence in our legal institutions, Catherine W. Real believes that a renewed emphasis on "Government In The Sunshine In The Halls Of Justice" may result in a strengthening of this institution.
A judge's decision should not be swayed by public opinion. As the Florida Supreme Court has said, "a judicial officer must fulfill his or her obligations to uphold the constitutional and statutory rights of the litigants before the court, notwithstanding that such decision may be unpopular with the community." In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77, 89 (Fla. 2003).
An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. The successful operation of our democracy is also conditioned upon the public perception that the courts provide an independent and impartial tribunal to resolve disputes and protect basic individual rights. Judicial independence and impartiality are vital to our state's civic health.
Trust in the People:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depositary of the public trust. -- Thomas Jefferson
Public Confidence: Thus, without the public's confidence, the judiciary's ability to do justice is compromised.
Next to doing right, the great object in the administration of justice should be to give public satisfaction. -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay
Sometimes, in the pressure of doing what judges have to do and running a tight ship in the courtroom and deciding tough issues, we might forget that, in the last analysis, it is, after all, the public we serve and that we do care how the courts are perceived generally. -- Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor
Public Perception of Our Courts in Hillsborough County: Judicial Scandals
The public's confidence in the judiciary of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Hillsborough County) has been heavily taxed in the not so distant past. Judicial scandal after judicial scandal was reported in the newspapers in the new century. The allegations were legion: one circuit judge was caught sneaking into a fellow judge's chambers after hours. A grand jury was convened to sort out culpability. Another judge, who was accused of sexually harassing four female colleagues, including two judges, resigned. After having being accused of having sex at the courthouse with a court bailiff, another circuit judge resigned. And there were other incidents.
Click here for press coverage of some of the allegations of judicial misconduct here in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit and click here to see Florida Supreme Court Order regarding Judge Robert H. Bonanno
Today's Challenges
Competent judges are hard-working, ethical and temperate. They control their courtrooms without having to engage in bullying, sarcasm, or hubris. They listen carefully to the evidence and strive to apply the law to the evidence received. Regrettably, the sins of a few judges, as shown by recent Judicial Qualifications Commission investigations, can adversely affect the public's perception of the entire court.
Some say that the past is the past . . . let it go and move on. Now is not the time to just "move on." Now is the time to reassess, identify strengths and weaknesses and develop a solid plan to remedy these weaknesses. A citizen has the right to enter public courtrooms and evaluate the judiciary
Catherine W. Real believes that the public's confidence in the courts is waning. Debates about the balance of power between the three branches of government and the role of federal and state courts in a democratic society have divided the nation. This schism was most evident during the recent confirmation hearings for the positions of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, many voters have little or no information about judicial candidates. We must remember that, except in cases where the governor has constitutional authority to fill vacancies by appointment, the public is empowered to elect the judiciary that serves in our county and circuit courts. Fla. Constitution, Article 5, § 10. The public should be given full access to information about our judicial candidates in order to make informed decisions.
Restoration of Public Confidence in Our Courts
To prevent further erosion of public confidence in our legal institutions, Catherine W. Real believes that a renewed emphasis on "Government In The Sunshine In The Halls Of Justice" may result in a strengthening of this institution.
Meaningful Elections Of Trial Judges
If elected as circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will make concerted efforts to improve the law by advocating for more meaningful elections of our trial judges.
Introduction:
Introduction:
1. Three branches of government: There are three branches of government in Florida:
How are our various judges "selected?"
The Executive Branch
[Headed by the Governor]
The Legislative Branch
[Made up of the Florida Senate and House of Representatives];
The Judicial Branch:
[Made up of our Courts]
2. The Judicial Branch:[Headed by the Governor]
The Legislative Branch
[Made up of the Florida Senate and House of Representatives];
The Judicial Branch:
[Made up of our Courts]
There are two classifications of courts:
Appellate Courts: Our Florida Supreme Court and our District Courts of Appeal.
Trial Courts: Our Circuit and County Courts.
Trial Courts: Our Circuit and County Courts.
HOW ARE OUR APPELLATE JUDGES SELECTED?
[Our Circuit and County Court Judges]
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES
Our Supreme Court Justices and the Judges of our District Courts of Appeals
When was merit retention of our appellate judges initiated?
What are judicial nominating commissions empowered to do?
Are members of the judicial nominating commissions elected by the people?
How many members are there on a Judicial Nominating Commission?
How are the members of the Judicial Nominating Commission selected?
What profession makes up a majority of these commissions?
After a Florida Supreme Court justice is appointed by the Governor, does he or she have to wait to be elected by the voters before serving as a Supreme Court justice?
After being appointed by the Governor, do appointees have to face the voters in an election?
When does a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice have to face the voters in an election?
Is the election of a Supreme Court nominee the same as our elections for Governor or members of the Florida Senate or House of Representatives?
How are these elections different?
What is the voter asked to do with only one candidate on the ballot?
How does the language on the ballot read?
If the voters elect to "retain" the justice or judge, what happens?
When the justice or judge completes his or her full six-year term, what happens then?
Is there an official performance evaluation of each justice or judge to help the voter evaluate whether or not to vote to retain this individual?
Is the justice or judge who is running for retention, allowed to campaign to inform the voter about his or her background or record?
Do these merit retention "campaigns" of our appellate judges tend to provide a great deal of information to the voter about the performance and the record of the candidate?
What are some of the criticisms of merit selection and retention?
Politics and Merit Selection:
Merit Retention: A Closed Door System
HOW ARE OUR TRIAL COURT JUDGES SELECTED?
Not by the direct election of the people, but rather by what is called "merit" selection.
When was merit retention of our appellate judges initiated?
When the voters amended the Florida Constitution in the 1970s
How does merit selection of our appellate justices or judges work in Florida?
There are judicial nominating commissions created by our Constitution,
Article V, § 20, and further defined by Chapter 43.291, Florida Statutes.
Article V, § 20, and further defined by Chapter 43.291, Florida Statutes.
What are judicial nominating commissions empowered to do?
"The purpose of the commissions is to advertise judicial vacancies, accept and screen applicants to fill those vacancies, and recommend to the governor at least three nominees for each judicial vacancy." See Article V, § 11, Commentary.
Are members of the judicial nominating commissions elected by the people?
No.
How many members are there on a Judicial Nominating Commission?
Nine.
How are the members of the Judicial Nominating Commission selected?
They are exclusively appointed by the Governor.
1. Four members of The Florida Bar:
(Board of Governors of the Florida Bar submits three recommended nominees for each position. The Governor must select from the list of nominees for that position but can reject the entire list and request a new list of three new nominees not previously recommended by the Florida Bar).
2. Five members appointed by the Governor:
(At least two of whom must be members of the Florida Bar engaged in the practice of law).
1. Four members of The Florida Bar:
(Board of Governors of the Florida Bar submits three recommended nominees for each position. The Governor must select from the list of nominees for that position but can reject the entire list and request a new list of three new nominees not previously recommended by the Florida Bar).
2. Five members appointed by the Governor:
(At least two of whom must be members of the Florida Bar engaged in the practice of law).
What profession makes up a majority of these commissions?
The legal profession! At least six (6) of these non-elected commission members are lawyers. All of the members could be lawyers.
After a Florida Supreme Court justice is appointed by the Governor, does he or she have to wait to be elected by the voters before serving as a Supreme Court justice?
No. Once appointed, he or she becomes a member of the Supreme Court. No voter approval is required to be appointed as a justice of the Florida Supreme Court.
After being appointed by the Governor, do appointees have to face the voters in an election?
Yes.
When does a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice have to face the voters in an election?
In the next general election that occurs more than one year after their appointment.
Is the election of a Supreme Court nominee the same as our elections for Governor or members of the Florida Senate or House of Representatives?
No.
How are these elections different?
There is only one candidate on the ballot -- the individual recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission and appointed by the Governor. When running, therefore, he or she is already a justice of the Florida Supreme Court and has no opposition on the ballot.
What is the voter asked to do with only one candidate on the ballot?
The voter is asked to decide to "retain" or "not retain" this one candidate.
How does the language on the ballot read?
These words, or words similar to these, are on the ballot:
Shall Justice or Judge (add name) of the (add name of court) be retained in office?
Shall Justice or Judge (add name) of the (add name of court) be retained in office?
If the voters elect to "retain" the justice or judge, what happens?
The justice or judge serves a six (6) year term beginning in early January following the merit retention election.
When the justice or judge completes his or her full six-year term, what happens then?
If the justice or judge wishes to seek reelection and is otherwise qualified to do so, the justice will again face an up or down vote in the general election occurring just before the six-year term expires.
Is there an official performance evaluation of each justice or judge to help the voter evaluate whether or not to vote to retain this individual?
No.
Is the justice or judge who is running for retention, allowed to campaign to inform the voter about his or her background or record?
Yes.
Do these merit retention "campaigns" of our appellate judges tend to provide a great deal of information to the voter about the performance and the record of the candidate?
No! Catherine W. Real believes that the public is given little meaningful information about the merit retention elections of our Supreme Court justice and judges of our District Courts of Appeal. Meaningful information is necessary for the voter to make an informed decision about whether or not to retain.
Catherine W. Real believes so little is known by the electorate about these judicial candidates that the elective merit retention system may not really reflect the informed will of the people.
Catherine W. Real believes so little is known by the electorate about these judicial candidates that the elective merit retention system may not really reflect the informed will of the people.
What are some of the criticisms of merit selection and retention?
Politics and Merit Selection:
In Catherine W. Real's opinion, politics can play a part in both the selection of commission members and in their deliberations. Moreover, retention elections are not always free from the involvement of special interests and expensive, negative campaigning.
". . . no empirical evidence demonstrates that merit selection removes politicking from judicial selection. The merit plan does not eliminate partisan politics from judicial selection." (p. 547) (Merit Appointment Versus Popular Election: A Reformer's Guide to Judicial Selection Methods in Florida. Madison B. McClellan, Esquire, 43 Fla. L. Rev. 529 (July 1991).
". . . no empirical evidence demonstrates that merit selection removes politicking from judicial selection. The merit plan does not eliminate partisan politics from judicial selection." (p. 547) (Merit Appointment Versus Popular Election: A Reformer's Guide to Judicial Selection Methods in Florida. Madison B. McClellan, Esquire, 43 Fla. L. Rev. 529 (July 1991).
Merit Retention: A Closed Door System
Merit selection and retention has been criticized as a 'closed-door' system. Judicial nominating commissions are viewed by some as an 'elitist' group that 'allows a small handful of lawyers to decide for a community who shall be our judges.'" (quoting A.J. Barranco, "Don't Eliminate the Right to Elect Florida's Trial Judges," Florida Bar News, August 15, 1999 at 4.)
Merit Retention: Women and Minority Selection
"Women and minority groups sometimes accuse merit selection and retention of actually reducing their chances of gaining judgeships." (citing Patricia A. Garcia, "Roadmaps: Judicial Selection 10 (1998).
Catherine W. Real's opinion regarding merit selection and retention of our appellate judges:
Catherine W. Real is concerned that merit selection and retention are not the solutions for a democratic judicial system that truly reflects the informed will of the people
Merit Retention: Women and Minority Selection
"Women and minority groups sometimes accuse merit selection and retention of actually reducing their chances of gaining judgeships." (citing Patricia A. Garcia, "Roadmaps: Judicial Selection 10 (1998).
Catherine W. Real's opinion regarding merit selection and retention of our appellate judges:
Catherine W. Real is concerned that merit selection and retention are not the solutions for a democratic judicial system that truly reflects the informed will of the people
[Our Circuit and County Court Judges]
By the people through the election process
Judicial Trial Court Campaigns:
Philosophical Debate About Who is in Control Continues to Rage:
Who shall we trust to select our judges? Shall we trust the People through the election process or the Lawyers through merit selection? Who is in control?
TRUST THE LAWYER/MERIT RETENTION
The philosophy of merit selection appears to be grounded upon a belief that only lawyers know who is, or is not, a good judicial candidate. Is the law far too complicated to be left to the people who know nothing about judicial qualifications? Should the lawyers alone, select our judges? Merit retention advocates would probably answer, "Yes."
TRUST THE PEOPLE/ELECTIONS
What are the arguments in favor of the election of our trial court judges?
(The article from which the following quotes are taken does not address state judicial campaigns. Catherine W. Real, believes, however, that these words should have equal applicability to them)
"Elections are our central form of collective political decision-making, and thus, they are our most important mechanism for securing democratically accountable government. The very legitimacy of our system of elections requires that candidates [ ] be able to participate in the [electoral] process and [to] make their cases to the voters. A free election assumes that candidates are free not simply to place their names on the ballot but to contest the election vigorously. A vigorous contest includes the freedom to communicate with the voters to [attempt to] persuade them to cast their ballots for a particular candidate."
"The legitimacy of [the election also] turns on the ability of voters to receive the information they need in order to cast informed votes. This is not simply a matter of enabling each voter to make a choice [ ] consistent with his or her interests or beliefs. Citizens as voters are making choices that bind the polity as a whole and set the course of government policy for the next political term. There is, thus, a collective interest in increasing the amount of relevant information available to the voters in the hope of improving the quality of voter decision-making."
Elections may also be seen as a key way for voters to check the government and to make it accountable to them. "The opportunity to deny reelection to incumbents, and the possibility that in any given election the people may exercise their authority to vote out current officeholders, is [perhaps] the ultimate security of popular control over government." This requires competitive elections. Challengers must be able to get on the ballot and make their case to the voters not just as a matter of the challengers' rights but to vindicate the systemic interest in using competitive elections to hold elected officials accountable.
Basic Principles of Campaign Finance Regulation, New York City Bar click here,
What has been the position of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar regarding the best way to select our trial judges?
The Board of Governors has favored merit selection and retention of our trial judges.
Do the rank-and-file attorneys who are members of the Florida Bar also support merit selection and retention of our trial judges?
Whether the rank-and-file attorneys who are not a part of the leadership of the organized Bar follow the lead of its Board of Governors in its support of merit selection and retention is unknown.
What was the position of the American Bar Association regarding the best way to select our trial judges?
The ABA favored merit selection.
What are the arguments against the selection of our trial judges by the election process?
The major argument centers on campaign contributions. Some are concerned that the necessity of securing these contributions gives the impression that our judges can be controlled by special interests. It has been argued that because of campaign contributions, justice is for sale. Why have elections, some would say, when voters frequently know little about judicial candidates since Codes of Conduct places greater restrictions on candidate speech. Finally, it is argued that lawyers know little about the political processes and thus elections discourage otherwise exceptional candidates from seeking judicial office.
In light of the merit retention positions of the organized bars, why are our trial judges selected by direct election of the people and not merit selection like our appellate judges?
Because the citizens of the State of Florida voted in favor of the election of our trial judges!
As the Florida Supreme Court stated in an advisory opinion to the Governor in 2002, "the conflict ["between sections of the constitution"] must be resolved by a construction which gives effect to the clear will of the voters that circuit and county court judges be selected by election." Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Appointment or Election of Judges, 824 So. 2d 132, 136 (Fla. 2002).
Does Florida's Constitution provide for a local option where voters could elect a merit selection and retention system of our trial judges?
Has any Florida jurisdiction exercised the local option to select and retain their local trial judges through the merit system?
Who shall we trust to select our judges? Shall we trust the People through the election process or the Lawyers through merit selection? Who is in control?
TRUST THE LAWYER/MERIT RETENTION
The philosophy of merit selection appears to be grounded upon a belief that only lawyers know who is, or is not, a good judicial candidate. Is the law far too complicated to be left to the people who know nothing about judicial qualifications? Should the lawyers alone, select our judges? Merit retention advocates would probably answer, "Yes."
TRUST THE PEOPLE/ELECTIONS
What are the arguments in favor of the election of our trial court judges?
(The article from which the following quotes are taken does not address state judicial campaigns. Catherine W. Real, believes, however, that these words should have equal applicability to them)
"Elections are our central form of collective political decision-making, and thus, they are our most important mechanism for securing democratically accountable government. The very legitimacy of our system of elections requires that candidates [ ] be able to participate in the [electoral] process and [to] make their cases to the voters. A free election assumes that candidates are free not simply to place their names on the ballot but to contest the election vigorously. A vigorous contest includes the freedom to communicate with the voters to [attempt to] persuade them to cast their ballots for a particular candidate."
"The legitimacy of [the election also] turns on the ability of voters to receive the information they need in order to cast informed votes. This is not simply a matter of enabling each voter to make a choice [ ] consistent with his or her interests or beliefs. Citizens as voters are making choices that bind the polity as a whole and set the course of government policy for the next political term. There is, thus, a collective interest in increasing the amount of relevant information available to the voters in the hope of improving the quality of voter decision-making."
Elections may also be seen as a key way for voters to check the government and to make it accountable to them. "The opportunity to deny reelection to incumbents, and the possibility that in any given election the people may exercise their authority to vote out current officeholders, is [perhaps] the ultimate security of popular control over government." This requires competitive elections. Challengers must be able to get on the ballot and make their case to the voters not just as a matter of the challengers' rights but to vindicate the systemic interest in using competitive elections to hold elected officials accountable.
Basic Principles of Campaign Finance Regulation, New York City Bar click here,
What has been the position of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar regarding the best way to select our trial judges?
The Board of Governors has favored merit selection and retention of our trial judges.
Do the rank-and-file attorneys who are members of the Florida Bar also support merit selection and retention of our trial judges?
Whether the rank-and-file attorneys who are not a part of the leadership of the organized Bar follow the lead of its Board of Governors in its support of merit selection and retention is unknown.
What was the position of the American Bar Association regarding the best way to select our trial judges?
The ABA favored merit selection.
What are the arguments against the selection of our trial judges by the election process?
The major argument centers on campaign contributions. Some are concerned that the necessity of securing these contributions gives the impression that our judges can be controlled by special interests. It has been argued that because of campaign contributions, justice is for sale. Why have elections, some would say, when voters frequently know little about judicial candidates since Codes of Conduct places greater restrictions on candidate speech. Finally, it is argued that lawyers know little about the political processes and thus elections discourage otherwise exceptional candidates from seeking judicial office.
In light of the merit retention positions of the organized bars, why are our trial judges selected by direct election of the people and not merit selection like our appellate judges?
Because the citizens of the State of Florida voted in favor of the election of our trial judges!
As the Florida Supreme Court stated in an advisory opinion to the Governor in 2002, "the conflict ["between sections of the constitution"] must be resolved by a construction which gives effect to the clear will of the voters that circuit and county court judges be selected by election." Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Appointment or Election of Judges, 824 So. 2d 132, 136 (Fla. 2002).
Does Florida's Constitution provide for a local option where voters could elect a merit selection and retention system of our trial judges?
Yes.
Has any Florida jurisdiction exercised the local option to select and retain their local trial judges through the merit system?
No . . . It appears clear that the people of the State of Florida favor the "election" of their trial judges.
Judicial Trial Court Campaigns:
What is the major problem with the current way judicial campaigns are regulated?
The major problem is that little meaningful information is provided to the voter through the campaign process about a judicial candidate's background or vision for the courts.
Take The Test To Determine Whether Judicial Campaigns Inform You, The Voter, About The Background And Vision Of Judicial Candidates
Take The Test To Determine Whether Judicial Campaigns Inform You, The Voter, About The Background And Vision Of Judicial Candidates
When you enter the polls, do you even know the names of the judicial candidates?
It is Catherine W. Real's belief that most voters have a far greater chance of knowing the names of those who are running for governor, mayor, county commissioner or city counsel. Is this because of less restrictive regulations on free speech in these kinds of campaigns?
Do you just "not vote" for judicial candidates because you know nothing about them?
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Judicial Campaigns:
Catherine W. Real believes that judicial campaigns as they are currently regulated provide little information to the voter upon which to select their judges. She strongly favors a debate about the restrictions placed upon the First Amendment (Free Speech) rights of judicial candidates in Florida's judicial elections.
It is Catherine W. Real's belief that most voters have a far greater chance of knowing the names of those who are running for governor, mayor, county commissioner or city counsel. Is this because of less restrictive regulations on free speech in these kinds of campaigns?
Do you just "not vote" for judicial candidates because you know nothing about them?
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Judicial Campaigns:
Catherine W. Real believes that judicial campaigns as they are currently regulated provide little information to the voter upon which to select their judges. She strongly favors a debate about the restrictions placed upon the First Amendment (Free Speech) rights of judicial candidates in Florida's judicial elections.
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES
Are the campaigns for Florida Governor and Senate and House membership similar to the campaigns to elect our trial judges?
What is the effect of this two tiered regulation of the elections of our trial court judges?
a. Its goal is laudable; to civilize the judicial election process. To ensure that a judicial candidate makes no misrepresentation.
b. In application, however, it may result in:
Are Florida's Judicial Campaign Restrictions Constitutional?
With the public's concerns about "judicial activism" may come a flurry of litigation challenging the constitutionality of Florida's and other states' judicial campaign codes. Until recently, the consensus of some legal scholars was that the state's interest in preserving the impartiality of their judiciaries might justify greater restrictions on speech during judicial campaigns than during campaigns for other offices. However, three recent rulings have made it unclear whether such restrictions remain viable
Meaningful Citations:
HOW CAN WE MAKE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS MORE MEANINGFUL?
No. In campaigns to elect the Governor, for example, a candidate's conduct is primarily regulated by the election laws of the State of Florida. If the candidate makes misrepresentations during the campaign, his opponent can sue him if those misrepresentations were malicious. Malice is hard to prove and therefore there are very few instances of a successful lawsuit against gubernatorial candidates. Once elected by the people, there are few, if any, remedies to punish a candidate for running a "dirty" race. The theory is that free speech will most inform the voters about the background and visions of the candidate and that the voter is wise enough to be able to identify and discount campaign exaggerations, and misrepresentations.
In judicial races, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct which limits what judicial candidates may say in their campaigns, restricts how they raise campaign contributions, and curtails their ability to engage in partisan political activities other than support of their own candidacies. This Code restricts the election-related activities of judicial candidates to a far greater extent than state statutes regulate the campaigns of executive and legislative candidates.
If the candidate is already a judge: The candidate's conduct is not only regulated by Florida's election laws, but also by certain provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A judicial campaign violation could result in the Florida Supreme Court removing from the bench, the candidate who actually won the election. The Florida Supreme Court, under this second level of regulation, has the power to remove a judge chosen by the voters. (Voter Nullification)
If the candidate is not a judge, but just an attorney: The Code of Professional Responsibility which regulates the conduct of lawyers has also imposed additional regulations on the election speech of lawyers who run for a judgeship. If the candidate violates the Code's election rules and he or she loses the race, The Florida Bar can punish him or her for violations of the election provisions of the Code. The maximum penalty the Florida Supreme Court can impose is disbarment.
In judicial races, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct which limits what judicial candidates may say in their campaigns, restricts how they raise campaign contributions, and curtails their ability to engage in partisan political activities other than support of their own candidacies. This Code restricts the election-related activities of judicial candidates to a far greater extent than state statutes regulate the campaigns of executive and legislative candidates.
If the candidate is already a judge: The candidate's conduct is not only regulated by Florida's election laws, but also by certain provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A judicial campaign violation could result in the Florida Supreme Court removing from the bench, the candidate who actually won the election. The Florida Supreme Court, under this second level of regulation, has the power to remove a judge chosen by the voters. (Voter Nullification)
If the candidate is not a judge, but just an attorney: The Code of Professional Responsibility which regulates the conduct of lawyers has also imposed additional regulations on the election speech of lawyers who run for a judgeship. If the candidate violates the Code's election rules and he or she loses the race, The Florida Bar can punish him or her for violations of the election provisions of the Code. The maximum penalty the Florida Supreme Court can impose is disbarment.
What is the effect of this two tiered regulation of the elections of our trial court judges?
a. Its goal is laudable; to civilize the judicial election process. To ensure that a judicial candidate makes no misrepresentation.
b. In application, however, it may result in:
1. An impermissible limitation on free speech.
2. The chilling of the kind of vigorous debate about a candidate's vision of how to improve the structure and operation of our courts.
3. A chilling of the willingness of a candidate to get his or her campaign message and vision out to the voters, fearing sanction by the Supreme Court for violation of a Code which leaves many of its terms open to interpretation.
4. The nullification of the decisions of the voters.
5. The voters learning next- to- nothing about judicial candidates or their visions.
2. The chilling of the kind of vigorous debate about a candidate's vision of how to improve the structure and operation of our courts.
3. A chilling of the willingness of a candidate to get his or her campaign message and vision out to the voters, fearing sanction by the Supreme Court for violation of a Code which leaves many of its terms open to interpretation.
4. The nullification of the decisions of the voters.
5. The voters learning next- to- nothing about judicial candidates or their visions.
Are Florida's Judicial Campaign Restrictions Constitutional?
With the public's concerns about "judicial activism" may come a flurry of litigation challenging the constitutionality of Florida's and other states' judicial campaign codes. Until recently, the consensus of some legal scholars was that the state's interest in preserving the impartiality of their judiciaries might justify greater restrictions on speech during judicial campaigns than during campaigns for other offices. However, three recent rulings have made it unclear whether such restrictions remain viable
Meaningful Citations:
Federal Cases
Spending limits on judicial campaigns violated the First Amendment.
Suster v. Marshall, 951 F Supp. 693 (N.D. Ohio 1996).
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio struck down a provision in the Ohio judicial ethics code that limited the judicial candidates to spending $75,000 on their campaigns because the provision was not narrowly tailored to serve state interests of directing judicial resources toward the resolution of disputes in courts, rather than managing campaigns, of ensuring an independent judiciary or improving public confidence and trust in judges and was thus an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
Minnesota Canon that prohibited judicial candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues was unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)
In White, a judicial candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court disseminated materials criticizing prior Minnesota Supreme Court decisions on the issues of crime, welfare, and abortion. Based on these materials, the candidate was accused of violating Minnesota's judicial code prohibiting a judicial candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. Thereafter, the candidate challenged the constitutionality of the canon in federal court. The United States Supreme Court found that the announce clause attempted to restrict core political speech and therefore, must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional. The United States Supreme Court determined that the canon did not pass this strict scrutiny test because it was not narrowly tailored to serve the stated interest of judicial impartiality. Accordingly, the Court struck the canon as an unconstitutional finding that it violated First Amendment guarantees of protected political speech.
The Supreme Court's holding in White spurred national debate regarding restrictions on judicial campaign speech. Legal commentators still opine that it is unclear whether such restrictions remain viable. See Voting and Democracy: II. Judicial Elections and Free Speech, 119 HARV. L. REV. 1133 (2006).
Florida's Position
The Florida Supreme Court "distinguished" the holding in White and stated that Florida does not have an "announce clause" but rather, a more narrow canon prohibiting judicial candidates from pledging or promising conduct, or making statements that appear to commit the candidate to issues likely to come before the court. In re: Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003), certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 180 (U.S. Fla. Oct. 6, 2003).
Florida's Response To Weaver v. Bonner
Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F. 3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2002).
Georgia Canons that restricted public communication by judicial candidates, and prohibited personal solicitation of campaign contributions and publicly stated support violated First Amendment.
In 2002, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in White, and found that a Georgia canon prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions and publicly stated support was unconstitutional. See Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F. 3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. GA 2002).
Florida's Response To Weaver Because Florida's Canon 7C (1) contains similar prohibitions, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC) acknowledged in 2003 that Florida Canon 7C (1) may be unenforceable. Nevertheless, the JEAC said that it is charged with interpreting the application of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and that it does not render legal opinions as to the constitutionality or enforceability of the code.
The "Malice" Standard
In Weaver, the 11th Circuit also determined that the actual malice standard is applicable to judicial, as well as legislative elections in evaluating campaign representations. As of this date, the Florida Supreme Court has not commented on the application of the actual malice standard in the context of evaluating judicial campaign speech.
Spending limits on judicial campaigns violated the First Amendment.
Suster v. Marshall, 951 F Supp. 693 (N.D. Ohio 1996).
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio struck down a provision in the Ohio judicial ethics code that limited the judicial candidates to spending $75,000 on their campaigns because the provision was not narrowly tailored to serve state interests of directing judicial resources toward the resolution of disputes in courts, rather than managing campaigns, of ensuring an independent judiciary or improving public confidence and trust in judges and was thus an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
Minnesota Canon that prohibited judicial candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues was unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)
In White, a judicial candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court disseminated materials criticizing prior Minnesota Supreme Court decisions on the issues of crime, welfare, and abortion. Based on these materials, the candidate was accused of violating Minnesota's judicial code prohibiting a judicial candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. Thereafter, the candidate challenged the constitutionality of the canon in federal court. The United States Supreme Court found that the announce clause attempted to restrict core political speech and therefore, must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional. The United States Supreme Court determined that the canon did not pass this strict scrutiny test because it was not narrowly tailored to serve the stated interest of judicial impartiality. Accordingly, the Court struck the canon as an unconstitutional finding that it violated First Amendment guarantees of protected political speech.
The Supreme Court's holding in White spurred national debate regarding restrictions on judicial campaign speech. Legal commentators still opine that it is unclear whether such restrictions remain viable. See Voting and Democracy: II. Judicial Elections and Free Speech, 119 HARV. L. REV. 1133 (2006).
Florida's Position
The Florida Supreme Court "distinguished" the holding in White and stated that Florida does not have an "announce clause" but rather, a more narrow canon prohibiting judicial candidates from pledging or promising conduct, or making statements that appear to commit the candidate to issues likely to come before the court. In re: Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003), certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 180 (U.S. Fla. Oct. 6, 2003).
Florida's Response To Weaver v. Bonner
Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F. 3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2002).
Georgia Canons that restricted public communication by judicial candidates, and prohibited personal solicitation of campaign contributions and publicly stated support violated First Amendment.
In 2002, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in White, and found that a Georgia canon prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions and publicly stated support was unconstitutional. See Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F. 3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. GA 2002).
Florida's Response To Weaver Because Florida's Canon 7C (1) contains similar prohibitions, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC) acknowledged in 2003 that Florida Canon 7C (1) may be unenforceable. Nevertheless, the JEAC said that it is charged with interpreting the application of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and that it does not render legal opinions as to the constitutionality or enforceability of the code.
The "Malice" Standard
In Weaver, the 11th Circuit also determined that the actual malice standard is applicable to judicial, as well as legislative elections in evaluating campaign representations. As of this date, the Florida Supreme Court has not commented on the application of the actual malice standard in the context of evaluating judicial campaign speech.
HOW CAN WE MAKE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS MORE MEANINGFUL?
FIRST: Let us finalize the debate about whether Florida's trial judges (circuit and county court judges) should be elected by the people!
The people of the State of Florida have already voted to ensure that its trial judges are elected.
If the legal community or other interested persons or entities want to test the voters resolve about this issue, put the issue back on the ballot.
Until then, do nothing to frustrate the will of the people in this regard.
SECOND: Treat judicial elections like all other elections. Trust free debate and the voter's intelligence to evaluate the candidate's representations. Use the same standards in judicial and legislative elections to evaluate alleged misrepresentations.
Let a judicial campaign be a real exchange of ideas, visions and passions.
THIRD: Catherine W. Real believes that judicial campaigns, as they are currently regulated, provide little information to the voter upon which to select their judges. She strongly favors a debate about the restrictions placed upon the First Amendment rights of judicial candidates in Florida's judicial elections.
The people of the State of Florida have already voted to ensure that its trial judges are elected.
If the legal community or other interested persons or entities want to test the voters resolve about this issue, put the issue back on the ballot.
Until then, do nothing to frustrate the will of the people in this regard.
SECOND: Treat judicial elections like all other elections. Trust free debate and the voter's intelligence to evaluate the candidate's representations. Use the same standards in judicial and legislative elections to evaluate alleged misrepresentations.
Let a judicial campaign be a real exchange of ideas, visions and passions.
THIRD: Catherine W. Real believes that judicial campaigns, as they are currently regulated, provide little information to the voter upon which to select their judges. She strongly favors a debate about the restrictions placed upon the First Amendment rights of judicial candidates in Florida's judicial elections.
Be Impartial - Avoid Hidden Conflicts Of Interest By Disclosing Prior Employers, Employees And Close Friends
Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct - Conflicts Of Interest Avoidance
The Commentary to Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct states, "A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties and their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification."
Catherine W. Real believes that a citizen should be concerned about judges' impartiality if they fail to disclose to the lawyers and citizens who appear in their courtrooms, their prior partners, employers, and employees and close social friends.
Catherine W. Real has admired the practice of a judge working in another county who was so scrupulous about avoiding even an appearance of a conflict of interest that she posted on the door of her office a list of the names of attorneys whose homes she had socially visited.
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Conflict AvoidanceCatherine W. Real believes that a citizen should be concerned about judges' impartiality if they fail to disclose to the lawyers and citizens who appear in their courtrooms, their prior partners, employers, and employees and close social friends.
Catherine W. Real has admired the practice of a judge working in another county who was so scrupulous about avoiding even an appearance of a conflict of interest that she posted on the door of her office a list of the names of attorneys whose homes she had socially visited.
If elected a circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will avoid such conflicts of interest by posting on her website and in her courtroom, the names of her prior employers, and employees, and close social friends. Upon the filing of a motion for disqualification based on the involvement of people identified on the list, Ms. Real will disqualify herself.
No Aura Of Arrogance - Be Civil In And Out Of Court
Canon 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads as follows:
Circuit Judges Are Public Servants
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Motions For Disqualification
Instead of having the judge who is accused of prejudice hearing the Motion To Disqualify, the legal authorities that set forth who shall consider Motions For Disqualification for legal sufficiency could be amended to empower a panel of three judges, each from different divisions of the court, to decide whether a Motion for Disqualification should be granted or denied.
A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
Circuit Judges Are Public Servants
Circuit judges are public servants. If elected circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will conduct herself, on and off the bench, with the utmost of civility. If elected circuit judge, Ms. Real pledges to treat all who come before her with respect and courtesy. If elected as circuit judge, no citizen or attorney who comes before Ms. Real will be exposed to sarcasm, arrogance, hubris, condescension, flippancy, or flares of temper.
Motions To Disqualify A Judge
Article 1, section 9 of the Florida Constitution protects a
litigant's right to a fair trial that is inherent in due process.
Why would a party in a court proceeding want to file a Motion To Disqualify a judge?
What is a common circumstance under which a judge's "impartiality" might be reasonably questioned?
What does it mean if a judge recuses himself or herself voluntarily or is disqualified by the granting of a Motion To Disqualify?
Why would an attorney or a party be reluctant to file a Motion To Disqualify a judge?
What kind of conduct by a judge may raise concerns about the judge's personal bias or prejudice concerning a party of a party's attorney?
Is a judge allowed to determine whether the facts alleging his prejudice or bias are true?
Who decides whether a Motion To Disqualify Is Legally Sufficient?
The Problem:
Is it asking too much of a judge to pass on the legal sufficiency of a Motion To Disqualify when the motion sets out facts which accuses the judge of "personal bias or prejudice." Who likes to be accused of being prejudiced? The concern centers on whether the judge would take the matter "personally" and deny an otherwise legally sufficient motion.
Why would a party in a court proceeding want to file a Motion To Disqualify a judge?
[A party might seek to disqualify a judge if the judge's "impartiality" might reasonably be questioned.]
What is a common circumstance under which a judge's "impartiality" might be reasonably questioned?
[A judge's "impartiality" might be reasonably questioned if a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer.]
What does it mean if a judge recuses himself or herself voluntarily or is disqualified by the granting of a Motion To Disqualify?
It means that judge will no longer hear that case and that the case will be reassigned to another judge.
Why would an attorney or a party be reluctant to file a Motion To Disqualify a judge?
If the judge denies the Motion, he or she will continue to preside over the case. Some say attorneys may be reluctant to file Motions For Disqualification for fear of judicial reprisals.
What kind of conduct by a judge may raise concerns about the judge's personal bias or prejudice concerning a party of a party's attorney?
Any conduct by a judge that would give a reasonable person fear that he or she could not get a fair trail with the present judge under the circumstances outlined in the Motion may be enough. Gestures, facial expressions, shouting in court, unnecessary statements, and ex parte communications have all served as a basis for disqualifications of judges.
Is a judge allowed to determine whether the facts alleging his prejudice or bias are true?
Not in a first Motion for Disqualification filed by a party. For the purposes of the first Motion To Disqualify, the judge must presume the facts are true.
Who decides whether a Motion To Disqualify Is Legally Sufficient?
The presiding judge, i.e., the very judge who is alleged to be biased or prejudiced
The Problem:
Is it asking too much of a judge to pass on the legal sufficiency of a Motion To Disqualify when the motion sets out facts which accuses the judge of "personal bias or prejudice." Who likes to be accused of being prejudiced? The concern centers on whether the judge would take the matter "personally" and deny an otherwise legally sufficient motion.
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Motions For Disqualification
Instead of having the judge who is accused of prejudice hearing the Motion To Disqualify, the legal authorities that set forth who shall consider Motions For Disqualification for legal sufficiency could be amended to empower a panel of three judges, each from different divisions of the court, to decide whether a Motion for Disqualification should be granted or denied.
Trust But Verify - A Judicial Ethics Courtwatch Program
Who Regulates the Ethical Behavior of Judges? What to do About Judges with Temperament Problems.
A Judicial Ethics Courtwatch Program/Trust But Verify
Public Service Announcements about the Ethical Obligations of Judges
Judicial Standards and Performance Evaluations
Evaluation of Appellate Courts
Evaluation of Trial Courts
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Judicial Standards and Performance Evaluations
If a governor or legislator engages in misconduct, we citizens may readily learn about it from the media. But there seems to be little access to information regarding the halls of justice. It appears to take a major judicial scandal to get significant media attention. What may escape our scrutiny are the small but insidious ethical violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct which can lead to an incremental erosion of public confidence in our courts.
Florida has a Code of Judicial Conduct to which tenants all judges are obliged to adhere. What is a citizen to do if a circuit judge shouts at him or her in court? What action can a citizen take if a judge storms out of his or her courtroom in a fit of anger? Is there a remedy if a circuit judge is a bully? What if a judge is sarcastic, condescending and rude?
Florida has a Code of Judicial Conduct to which tenants all judges are obliged to adhere. What is a citizen to do if a circuit judge shouts at him or her in court? What action can a citizen take if a judge storms out of his or her courtroom in a fit of anger? Is there a remedy if a circuit judge is a bully? What if a judge is sarcastic, condescending and rude?
The Judicial Qualifications Commission:
Judicial Evaluation Program Is Limited To Attorneys Only
Who regulates the conduct of Florida judges? The Judicial Qualifications Commission (the "JQC")! But let's face reality; attorneys, who fear judicial reprisals rarely report judges for their alleged unethical behavior. Few members of the public even know about the existence of the JQC.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission was created by Article V, § 12, of the Florida Constitution.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission was created by Article V, § 12, of the Florida Constitution.
The Florida Bar (the Judicial Evaluation and Administration Committee) and the State judiciary (Florida Supreme Court) established a Judicial Evaluation Program in 1997. It is a laudable first step. It allows attorneys who appear before them to provide to judges' substantive input concerning their perceived strengths and areas for development. All information provided is confidential and is shared with the judge for review and to encourage performance improvement. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit participates in this program and places an icon for the program on the home page of its website. http://www.fljud13.org/eval.htm
There are two problems with the program:
There are two problems with the program:
1. Only attorneys, not members of the public, can evaluate a judge: only attorneys can provide input about a judge's conduct;
2. Even an attorney's opportunity to evaluate a judge is limited:
2. Even an attorney's opportunity to evaluate a judge is limited:
a. the attorney had to be in an adversary proceeding before the judge; and
b. there has to be a "final order" by the judge that has already been entered.
b. there has to be a "final order" by the judge that has already been entered.
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Judicial Evaluation: A program should be created by the Supreme Court, with substantial input from the public and media, to enable all members of the public to engage in a meaningful evaluation of individual judges and the judicial system as a whole. These evaluations should not be confidential but rather be accessible to the public on the internet.
Catherine W. Real believes that implementation of some of the steps outlined below will provide more "Government-in-the-Sunshine" in the halls of justice and promote more ethical behavior on the part of our circuit and county court judges and their staff.
Catherine W. Real believes that implementation of some of the steps outlined below will provide more "Government-in-the-Sunshine" in the halls of justice and promote more ethical behavior on the part of our circuit and county court judges and their staff.
A Judicial Ethics Courtwatch Program/Trust But Verify
Circuit judges are required to obey the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Qualifications Commission (the "JQC") is the organization empowered to investigate and, when appropriate, recommend punishment for judges who engage in unethical behavior. Far too frequently, the only way the JQC may learn of an ethical violation of a judge is if a citizen or attorney makes a complaint. Attorneys, fearing judicial reprisals, rarely make such complaints. The average citizen may not even know about the existence or role of the JQC in regulating the ethical conduct of judges and therefore makes no complaint.
Catherine W. Real proposes that the Judicial Qualifications Commission implement a "Judicial Ethics Courtwatch" program of its own. Rather than just waiting for a complaint, and without advanced notice, staff of the JQC could routinely and regularly appear in judges' courtrooms to observe their ethical compliance. If members of the public were more able to enter any public courtroom in Hillsborough County, no judge would know that a member of the JQC was there making observations of the judge's compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. The benefits of this Judicial Ethics Courtwatch program could be numerous. Ethical violations could be "nipped in the bud" before they blossom into major scandals. The public may have more confidence in the ability of the JQC to ensure ethical compliance by our judges. The wisdom of the expression, "Trust But Verify" could be given meaning.
Catherine W. Real proposes that the Judicial Qualifications Commission implement a "Judicial Ethics Courtwatch" program of its own. Rather than just waiting for a complaint, and without advanced notice, staff of the JQC could routinely and regularly appear in judges' courtrooms to observe their ethical compliance. If members of the public were more able to enter any public courtroom in Hillsborough County, no judge would know that a member of the JQC was there making observations of the judge's compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. The benefits of this Judicial Ethics Courtwatch program could be numerous. Ethical violations could be "nipped in the bud" before they blossom into major scandals. The public may have more confidence in the ability of the JQC to ensure ethical compliance by our judges. The wisdom of the expression, "Trust But Verify" could be given meaning.
Public Service Announcements about the Ethical Obligations of Judges
There should be frequent public service announcements in "non-legalese," advising the public about the ethical obligations of judges and about the way citizens can evaluate our judges and, when appropriate, make complaints to the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Judicial Standards and Performance Evaluations
How can we evaluate the performance of a judge? Efforts need to be made to develop a method of evaluating the performance of our trial and appellate judges and justices.
The Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire promulgated by rule a judicial performance evaluation program for both trial and appellate courts. Performance Evaluation questionnaires were developed for use by the public.
The Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire promulgated by rule a judicial performance evaluation program for both trial and appellate courts. Performance Evaluation questionnaires were developed for use by the public.
Evaluation of Appellate Courts
A self-evaluation form was developed to be used by an individual appellate judge in evaluating himself or herself. These questionnaires sought to evaluate a judge's
(1) Performance and judicial management skills;
(2) Temperament and demeanor; and
(3) Bias and objectivity.
The questionnaire also asked respondents to evaluate the performance of other court personnel.
(2) Temperament and demeanor; and
(3) Bias and objectivity.
Evaluation of Trial Courts
The Performance Evaluation Questionnaire, the Self- Evaluation Form and the Evaluation Summary for trial courts identify seven areas considered in the evaluations:
(1) Performance (including ability to identify and analyze issues, judgment, and the application of the law
(2) Temperament and Demeanor
(3) Judicial Management Skills
(4) Legal Knowledge
(5) Attentiveness
(6) Bias and Objectivity
(7) Degree of Preparedness
(2) Temperament and Demeanor
(3) Judicial Management Skills
(4) Legal Knowledge
(5) Attentiveness
(6) Bias and Objectivity
(7) Degree of Preparedness
Catherine W. Real's Position Regarding Judicial Standards and Performance Evaluations
Catherine W. Real will continue to advocate for the development of a Judicial Standards and Performance Evaluations program. In developing such a program in Florida, input from the public and the media is essential to the creation of a meaningful evaluation program which can not only hold our courts accountable to the people but also increase the confidence of the public in our courts.
A Proposed Code Of Ethics For Non-Judicial Court Employees
(Stress The Importance Of High Ethical Conduct Among Court Staff)
Traditionally, in Hillsborough County, a judicial assistant and a bailiff are assigned to assist the circuit judge in the performance of his or her duties. Every circuit and county court judge, who is first a servant of the people, should demand the highest of ethical conduct of the staff that he or she utilizes.
If elected, Catherine W. Real will strive to ensure that her judicial assistant understands the fundamental requirement of impartiality. This includes refusing any gifts from attorneys and their firms, as well as being equally responsive to all litigants and attorneys requesting calendar time.
In addition, Catherine W. Real understands that public perception of the judge often begins with the judicial assistant. Consequently, if elected, she will not tolerate unprofessional, grumpy or disrespectful demeanor in a judicial assistant.
Code of Ethics for Non-Judicial Court Employees
Code of Conduct for Bailiffs
If elected, Catherine W. Real will strive to ensure that her judicial assistant understands the fundamental requirement of impartiality. This includes refusing any gifts from attorneys and their firms, as well as being equally responsive to all litigants and attorneys requesting calendar time.
In addition, Catherine W. Real understands that public perception of the judge often begins with the judicial assistant. Consequently, if elected, she will not tolerate unprofessional, grumpy or disrespectful demeanor in a judicial assistant.
Code of Ethics for Non-Judicial Court Employees
A necessary part of a fair and independent court system is proper conduct by non-judicial employees (like a judge's judicial assistant) who inspire public confidence and trust in our judiciary.
The Florida Supreme Court has not yet adopted a Code of Ethics for Non-Judicial Employees. Instead, the issue has been addressed by opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee recommended that the Florida Supreme Court direct the drafting of a code similar to the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
See: The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08:
Have any Florida Circuit Courts adopted this opinion as a local rule?
The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit has adopted as a local rule Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08. It is possible that other circuits have adopted this opinion. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has not.
Catherine W. Real's Position: If elected circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will urge the Chief Judge to adopt, as a local rule and publish for citizens' review, Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08. Catherine W. Real will also post this opinion on her website, in her office and courtroom and require her judicial assistant to strictly adhere to its tenants. Catherine W. Real will also advocate for the development and implementation of a Code of Conduct For Non-judicial Employees.
See the American Judicature Society's Model Code of Conduct for Non-judicial Court Employees
See the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
The Florida Supreme Court has not yet adopted a Code of Ethics for Non-Judicial Employees. Instead, the issue has been addressed by opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee recommended that the Florida Supreme Court direct the drafting of a code similar to the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
See: The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08:
1. Sets forth its opinion regarding whether judges and court employees should accept gifts from lawyers, vendors, and other third parties;
2. Noted that there is currently no code of ethical conduct for court employees; and
3. Recommended that the Florida Supreme Court direct the drafting of a code similar to the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, for non- judicial court employees of the State of Florida.
2. Noted that there is currently no code of ethical conduct for court employees; and
3. Recommended that the Florida Supreme Court direct the drafting of a code similar to the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, for non- judicial court employees of the State of Florida.
Have any Florida Circuit Courts adopted this opinion as a local rule?
The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit has adopted as a local rule Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08. It is possible that other circuits have adopted this opinion. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has not.
Catherine W. Real's Position: If elected circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will urge the Chief Judge to adopt, as a local rule and publish for citizens' review, Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's Opinion 2000-08. Catherine W. Real will also post this opinion on her website, in her office and courtroom and require her judicial assistant to strictly adhere to its tenants. Catherine W. Real will also advocate for the development and implementation of a Code of Conduct For Non-judicial Employees.
See the American Judicature Society's Model Code of Conduct for Non-judicial Court Employees
See the Federal Court's Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
Code of Conduct for Bailiffs
The bailiffs (Deputy Sheriffs) assigned to courthouse duty here in Hillsborough County are employees of the Sheriff of Hillsborough County. They should be neutral participants in the proceedings and are extensions of the court. It is imperative that these Deputies maintain courthouse security and, in doing so, treat the public and attorneys with good manners and civility. Judges should not instruct bailiffs to bar citizens and their attorneys from those courtrooms that are public. Bailiffs should not be used to exclude an attorney's law clerk or paralegal from accompanying the attorney into the courtroom. Bailiffs should not be used to perform personal tasks for the judge to whom he or she is assigned. The Sheriff of Hillsborough County should be encouraged to set forth in writing the kinds of services bailiffs are and are not expected to perform and what steps a bailiff should take if requested to perform an inappropriate or illegal task. This code of conduct for bailiffs promulgated by the Sheriff should be readily available to the public. If the Sheriff elects not to promulgate and publish such rules, Catherine W. Real, if elected circuit judge, will post her ethical expectations of her bailiff on her website and in her courtroom and require the bailiff assigned to her office to strictly adhere to its tenants.
Work A Full Day
The Florida Constitution requires that all justices and judges devote "full time" to their judicial duties. Article V, §13. The average voter works an eight-hour day. Many attorneys in the private practice of law work even longer hours. If elected circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will be on duty a minimum of eight hours each working day. If she completes her judicial duties early in the Division to which she is assigned, Ms. Real will make efforts she has described in the website to improve the administration of justice.
A "Judicial Outreach To Citizens" Task Force
Why Do Our Citizens Know So Little About The Courts?
Catherine W. Real's Position - The Creation Of A Comprehensive "Judicial Outreach To Citizens" Task Force for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County).
Why do our citizens know so little about the courts? Why are our courts perceived in such a negative way? How can we bridge the major chasm between the courts and the community?
87% of participants in a 1997 National Conference on the Future of the State Judiciary believed that the greatest challenge facing the state courts is strengthening the relationship with the public.
87% of participants in a 1997 National Conference on the Future of the State Judiciary believed that the greatest challenge facing the state courts is strengthening the relationship with the public.
Catherine W. Real's Position - The Creation Of A Comprehensive "Judicial Outreach To Citizens" Task Force for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County).
Introduction
Meaningful Link
Judicial campaigns should not be the only source of information about our judges and courtrooms!
The Court Must Reach Out To Inform The Public:
The "Judicial Outreach To Citizens Task Force"
Purpose:
Membership:
Focus of the Task Force:
Speakers Bureau:
Town Hall Meetings
Judges "Speak Out and About" Program
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Web Site Must Make It Clear That The Public Is Welcome
On its website, The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, as does the Seventh Judicial Circuit, must first make it clear that it welcomes the public into its courtrooms without the necessity of securing an appointment.
Ask-a-Judge Web Page:
The Ninth Judicial Circuit has an "Ask-A-Judge" option on its website. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's website could do the same. On this page, a citizen could submit a question concerning any general matter designed to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice
Public Tours of the Courthouse
Providing the public with access to the actual courtrooms in which our judges and juries operate can be both informative and memorable. These tours could be theme- based. For example, there could be a:
Teen Tour [May include a tour of drug court, domestic violence court, felony and misdemeanor courtrooms.]
Senior Tour [May include a tour of our guardianship and probate courtrooms, our domestic violence courtrooms and our civil courtrooms where consumer fraud is addressed.]
Trial Tour [May include observations of a jury trial, a trial where the judge determines the facts (bench trials like in dissolution of marriage cases) and participation in a mock trial.]
Family Law Tour [May include a tour of our family law courts where marriages are dissolved, paternity is established and adoptions are finalized, and domestic violence courts.]
Criminal Law Tour, a/k/a a "Law & Order" Tour [May include a tour of our felony, misdemeanor and drug courts and the Offices of the State Attorney, Public Defender and Sheriff]
Torts Tour [Everyone has heard of "tort reform." This tour may include a visit to a jury trial of an automobile accident or medical malpractice case.]
Use of Technology to Spread the Word
Cameras in the Courtroom
The task force could explore the pros and cons of gavel-to-gavel broadcast of proceedings on television and over the internet. In our democracy, public institutions thrive when exposed to "sunshine." This "sunshine" assists the system in identifying and improving deficiencies. Further, access is indispensable to any effort to improve understanding and increase involvement.
The law denies public access to court proceeding in very few circumstances. Other than when prohibited by law (for example when minor children or rape victims are testifying), if Catherine W. Real is assigned to a courtroom that is public, the media, with cameras, microphones and other technology will be invited into her courtroom.
Court Programming for the Public
Provide More Opportunity for Media Coverage of Our Courts
Judicial Awareness Speaking and Writing Contests
Grants for Projects to Improve Citizen Access to Our Courts
Internships
In a 2002 issue of American Judicature Society, its then executive vice president and director, noted that recent surveys reveal that the public's understanding of how the courts work is minimal, that citizens feel hostile toward the courts, and that generally the public's impression of our courts is primarily based on popular culture such as TV, movies, and high-profile but atypical cases." The unfortunate result may be a diminished respect for our courts, our system of justice and the rule of law.
Meaningful Link
American Judicature Society, January-February 2002, "Cameras, the courts, and the public" (Editorial).
Judicial campaigns should not be the only source of information about our judges and courtrooms!
These campaigns are not structured in a way to inform the public about our courtrooms and invite citizen input.
The Court Must Reach Out To Inform The Public:
Catherine W. Real believes that it is the obligation of the courts to reach out to the public in a number of ways to increase knowledge about the courts and for the court to receive input from the public regarding how it is perceived.
The "Judicial Outreach To Citizens Task Force"
Catherine W. Real believes that it would be beneficial for the Chief Judge to create a comprehensive "Judicial Outreach To Citizens" Task Force for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
This is not a task force to just "study" the problem. It is a task force designed to create a comprehensive plan to reach out to the public and then to aggressively implement that plan.
This is not a task force to just "study" the problem. It is a task force designed to create a comprehensive plan to reach out to the public and then to aggressively implement that plan.
Purpose:
The purpose of the "Judicial Outreach To Citizens Task Force" is to promote public respect and support for the power and authority of the judiciary. Respect and support for the system cannot reasonably be expected absent public understanding of, and involvement in, the process and understanding cannot be reasonably expected without access.
The ultimate goal is to promote trust and confidence in the court through greater knowledge and understanding of our system of justice.
Membership:
Suggestions for membership in the Task Force include:
Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Chairman
A Florida Supreme Court Justice (Ex Officio Member)
A Judge on the Second District Court of Appeals (Ex Officio Member)
The State Attorney of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
The Public Defender of Hillsborough County
The Sheriff of Hillsborough County
The Clerk of the Circuit Court
The Presidents of the University of South Florida, the University of Tampa, and other universities and colleges within the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Chairman of the Hillsborough County School Board
Chairman of the First Amendment Foundation
Editors of The Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, La Gaceta, The Weekly Planet, and other member of the print media
Officials from the local, public access, and cable television media
Representatives of local radio
Presidents of the neighborhood associations of Tampa, Temple Terrance, Plant City, New Tampa and Hillsborough County
President of the Young Lawyers Division of the Florida Bar
Chairman of the Hillsborough County Bar Association "Speakers Bureau"
A Judge on the Second District Court of Appeals (Ex Officio Member)
The State Attorney of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
The Public Defender of Hillsborough County
The Sheriff of Hillsborough County
The Clerk of the Circuit Court
The Presidents of the University of South Florida, the University of Tampa, and other universities and colleges within the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Chairman of the Hillsborough County School Board
Chairman of the First Amendment Foundation
Editors of The Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, La Gaceta, The Weekly Planet, and other member of the print media
Officials from the local, public access, and cable television media
Representatives of local radio
Presidents of the neighborhood associations of Tampa, Temple Terrance, Plant City, New Tampa and Hillsborough County
President of the Young Lawyers Division of the Florida Bar
Chairman of the Hillsborough County Bar Association "Speakers Bureau"
Focus of the Task Force:
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's "Judicial Outreach To Citizens Task Force" will explore ways to ensure contact by citizens with our local courts including, but not limited to:
Speakers Bureau:
[The creation of a Speakers Bureau within the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit could help demystify the judicial system and promote citizen involvement by implementing:]
Town Hall Meetings
These meetings provide an opportunity for the judges to hear from the public how the citizens believe the judicial system in general and the court, in particular, are performing. The Ninth Judicial Circuit calls its Town Halls "a permanent channel for community input into the courts." http://www.ninja9.org Questions for a panel of our judges could be submitted via the internet, facsimile, mail or in person.
The Ninth Judicial Circuit also conducts "Community" Town Halls. With this format, our Judges could venture into the Hispanic, African-American and other ethnic communities to learn how these communities perceive our courts.
These Town Hall meetings should be made available on the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's website and on Public Access Television.
The Ninth Judicial Circuit also conducts "Community" Town Halls. With this format, our Judges could venture into the Hispanic, African-American and other ethnic communities to learn how these communities perceive our courts.
These Town Hall meetings should be made available on the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's website and on Public Access Television.
Judges "Speak Out and About" Program
This program should permit the public to request speakers (judges and court personnel) to talk about the many and various judicial issues. In the Sixth Judicial Circuit, its Speakers Bureau provides the following list of topics about which its judges will speak: (1) the Court System in general; (2) Family Issues In the Court System; (3) Children in the Courts; (4) Citizens With Special Needs; and (5) Other Aspects of the Court System. The Ninth Judicial Circuit's Speakers Bureau also offers discussions about the Rule of Law, Merit Retention vs. Election of Our Judges, and The Role of the Judge.
The chief judge could also request that the Florida and Hillsborough County Bars' Speakers Bureaus develop a coordinated annual plan with the court's Speakers Bureau to maximize the availability of speakers to civic groups, schools and other community organizations.
If elected as circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will encourage the creation of and participate in a Speakers Bureau in Hillsborough County.
Meaningful Links
The chief judge could also request that the Florida and Hillsborough County Bars' Speakers Bureaus develop a coordinated annual plan with the court's Speakers Bureau to maximize the availability of speakers to civic groups, schools and other community organizations.
If elected as circuit judge, Catherine W. Real will encourage the creation of and participate in a Speakers Bureau in Hillsborough County.
Meaningful Links
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Web Site Must Make It Clear That The Public Is Welcome
On its website, The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, as does the Seventh Judicial Circuit, must first make it clear that it welcomes the public into its courtrooms without the necessity of securing an appointment.
Ask-a-Judge Web Page:
The Ninth Judicial Circuit has an "Ask-A-Judge" option on its website. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's website could do the same. On this page, a citizen could submit a question concerning any general matter designed to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice
Public Tours of the Courthouse
Providing the public with access to the actual courtrooms in which our judges and juries operate can be both informative and memorable. These tours could be theme- based. For example, there could be a:
Teen Tour [May include a tour of drug court, domestic violence court, felony and misdemeanor courtrooms.]
Senior Tour [May include a tour of our guardianship and probate courtrooms, our domestic violence courtrooms and our civil courtrooms where consumer fraud is addressed.]
Trial Tour [May include observations of a jury trial, a trial where the judge determines the facts (bench trials like in dissolution of marriage cases) and participation in a mock trial.]
Family Law Tour [May include a tour of our family law courts where marriages are dissolved, paternity is established and adoptions are finalized, and domestic violence courts.]
Criminal Law Tour, a/k/a a "Law & Order" Tour [May include a tour of our felony, misdemeanor and drug courts and the Offices of the State Attorney, Public Defender and Sheriff]
Torts Tour [Everyone has heard of "tort reform." This tour may include a visit to a jury trial of an automobile accident or medical malpractice case.]
Use of Technology to Spread the Word
Cameras in the Courtroom
The task force could explore the pros and cons of gavel-to-gavel broadcast of proceedings on television and over the internet. In our democracy, public institutions thrive when exposed to "sunshine." This "sunshine" assists the system in identifying and improving deficiencies. Further, access is indispensable to any effort to improve understanding and increase involvement.
The law denies public access to court proceeding in very few circumstances. Other than when prohibited by law (for example when minor children or rape victims are testifying), if Catherine W. Real is assigned to a courtroom that is public, the media, with cameras, microphones and other technology will be invited into her courtroom.
Court Programming for the Public
The media capabilities of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit could be vastly enhanced by a partnership with the media and our universities and colleges. Discussions of various topics about our courts could be shared by audio and video and made available to the public via television, radio, RSS feed or other internet resource. University and college students could actually produce informative court-related audio and video for public consumption.
Provide More Opportunity for Media Coverage of Our Courts
Ms. Real believes that efforts need to be made by our judges to encourage more media coverage of the halls of justice.
Judicial Awareness Speaking and Writing Contests
University, college and high school students could participate in a Thirteenth Judicial Circuit "Judicial Awareness Speaking and Writing Contest." Cash awards could be given based upon the excellence of the performance. The ABA site on Law Day provides an abundance of topics which may encourage student participation.
Grants for Projects to Improve Citizen Access to Our Courts
The task force can explore opportunities for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit to secure grants for "special projects" to improve the administration of justice and public awareness of our judicial system.
Internships
Internships could be offered not only to high school and college students but also to senior citizens and participants in non-profit charitable groups.