Florida Judicial Term Limits Amendment (2018)

Florida Judicial Term Limits Amendment
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Term limits and State judiciary
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Florida measuresFlorida Amendment 1Florida Amendment 2Florida Amendment 3Florida Amendment 4Florida Amendment 5Florida Amendment 6Florida Amendment 7Florida Amendment 9Florida Amendment 10Florida Amendment 11Florida Amendment 12Florida Amendment 13Submit

The Florida Judicial Term Limits Amendment was not on the ballot in Florida as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.

The measure would have prohibited a justice of the supreme court or a judge of a district court of appeal from appearing on a retention ballot if the justice or judge had already served 12 consecutive years. Time served in office prior to January 9, 2019, would not have been counted toward the term limits. The measure would have also prohibited the reappointment of a justice or judge for one year after leaving office.

As of 2017, the governor was responsible for appointing justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts of appeal. Under the system in place at the time, appointed justices and judges stood in their first retention vote at the next general election that occurred more than one year after their appointment. If retained by voters, the justice or judge served a six-year term. As of 2017, no state justice or judge had ever lost a retention election.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title would have been as follows:

“

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE V, SECTION 10 ARTICLE XII TERM LIMITS FOR JUSTICES AND JUDGES.—Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit the name of a supreme court justice or district court of appeal judge from appearing on a ballot for retention if he or she has served more than 12 consecutive years in the same office and prohibit reappointment of a justice or judge for one year after leaving office. The term limit applies to justices and judges in office on January 9, 2019, and future appointees.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article V and Article XII of the Florida Constitution

The proposed amendment would have added a new section to Article XII and amended Section 10 of Article V of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 10 of Article V: Retention; Election and Terms

(a) Any justice or judge may qualify for retention by a vote of the electors in the general election next preceding the expiration of the justice's or judge's term in the manner prescribed by law. If a justice or judge is ineligible or fails to qualify for retention, a vacancy shall exist in that office upon the expiration of the term being served by the justice or judge. When a justice or judge so qualifies, the ballot shall read substantially as follows: "Shall Justice (or Judge) (name of justice or judge) of the (name of the court) be retained in office?" If a majority of the qualified electors voting within the territorial jurisdiction of the court vote to retain, the justice or judge shall be retained for a term of six years. The term of the justice or judge retained shall commence on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the general election. If a majority of the qualified electors voting within the territorial jurisdiction of the court vote to not retain, a vacancy shall exist in that office upon the expiration of the term being served by the justice or judge.

(b)(1) The election of circuit judges shall be preserved notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) unless a majority of those voting in the jurisdiction of that circuit approves a local option to select circuit judges by merit selection and retention rather than by election. The election of circuit judges shall be by a vote of the qualified electors within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(2) The election of county court judges shall be preserved notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) unless a majority of those voting in the jurisdiction of that county approves a local option to select county judges by merit selection and retention rather than by election. The election of county court judges shall be by a vote of the qualified electors within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(3)a. A vote to exercise a local option to select circuit court judges and county court judges by merit selection and retention rather than by election shall be held in each circuit and county at the general election in the year 2000. If a vote to exercise this local option fails in a vote of the electors, such option shall not again be put to a vote of the electors of that jurisdiction until the expiration of at least two years.

b. After the year 2000, a circuit may initiate the local option for merit selection and retention or the election of circuit judges, whichever is applicable, by filing with the custodian of state records a petition signed by the number of electors equal to at least ten percent of the votes cast in the circuit in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen.

c. After the year 2000, a county may initiate the local option for merit selection and retention or the election of county court judges, whichever is applicable, by filing with the supervisor of elections a petition signed by the number of electors equal to at least ten percent of the votes cast in the county in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen. The terms of circuit judges and judges of county courts shall be for six years.

(c) The name of a justice of the supreme court or judge of a district court of appeal may not appear on the ballot for retention if, by the end of his or her current term of office, the justice or judge will have served in that office for twelve consecutive years. A justice who is ineligible for retention under this subsection or who resigns from office may not be appointed to fill a vacancy on the supreme court for at least one year following the last date the justice served on the supreme court. A judge who is ineligible for retention under this subsection or who resigns from office may not be appointed to fill a vacancy on any district court of appeal for at least one year following the last date the judge served on the district court.

Article XII: Schedule

Applicability of limitations on the terms of justices and judges.— The amendment to Section 10 of Article V takes effect on January 9, 2019, and applies to each justice and district court judge in office on that date and to each justice and district court judge who assumes office thereafter. When determining whether a justice or district court judge in office on January 9, 2019, may appear on the ballot for retention, time served by the justice or district court judge in that office prior to January 9, 2019, shall not be included in the calculation of the total number of consecutive years served in that office.

Support

Arguments

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan (R-31), the amendment's legislative sponsor, stated:

“

An accountability system which doesn't hold people accountable is not truly an accountability system. Retention elections are not an effective check and balance on the appellate courts, and it's time for a new approach.

”

Opposition

Arguments

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said:

“

Term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench. Instead they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely apply, and even when good judges manage to end up on the bench, they will be kicked off just as they are gaining the institutional knowledge and experience that make for great judges.

”

Media editorials

Opposition

• Sarasota Herald-Tribune said: "But there is no evidence — especially since no other state has such restrictions — that term limits would make the judicial branch more accountable. The scheme would simply increase turnover in the judicial branch for no good reason."
• Tampa Bay Times said: "Florida's court system already has become too politicized by the partisan manipulation of the judicial nominating commissions that screen judicial candidates for the governor to consider. Term limits for appellate judges and Supreme Court justices would make that situation even worse, and the Senate should reject this constitutional amendment. If it doesn't, it will be up to voters next year to stand up for an independent judiciary."

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Florida Constitution

In Florida, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a 60 percent vote in each house of the state legislature during one legislative session.

On January 25, 2017, the amendment was filed in the state legislature as House Joint Resolution 1. The House of Representatives approved the measure, 73 to 46 with one member not voting, on March 29, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the bill was indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration in the Senate.

House vote

March 29, 2017

Florida HJR 1 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		73	61.34%
No		46	38.66%

See also

Suggest a link

• 2018 ballot measures
• Florida 2018 ballot measures
• Florida Legislature
• Term limits on the ballot
• Florida Supreme Court
• Florida District Courts of Appeal