[StarfishKey]

I am going in for early voting today, and took a look at my mailed sample ballot to see what issues I need to vote on. I realized there is one we have not discussed here yet - Amendment 3. Below is an article from the Herald Tribune explaining the issue. Since the article is rather long, the simple explanation is that currently if a governor begins a term on the same day as a State Supreme Court justice retires, that new elected governor will select the judge. This Amendment is an attempt by our Legislature to corrupt our judicial selection, attempting to change this to the governor LEAVING will choose the new judge! That makes no sense, and is yet another thing that will make Florida the laughingstock of the US political process. As the article below explains, 3 different justices will be retiring on the same inauguration day of 2019, so this is going to matter for us.

This is obviously a terrible amendment for both conservative and liberal voters alike. None of us are particularly happy with our choices for governor right now. So this Amendment would mean that whoever we pick - Crist or Scott - will choose our judges who will affect Florida all the way until they're 70 and forced to retire, even if that governor is voted out of office come the 2018 election. Why in the WORLD would we let someone whose term ends in 2018 select 3 judges whose terms don't begin until 2019? That is NOT how judge selection is normally done in this country, and the only people interested in this are people who want to corrupt our judiciary in ways that are neither necessary nor moral.

The wording of the Amendment on the ballot does not make this very clear at all, it makes it sound like a totally different issue. Vote NO on Amendment 3! Here's the article:
----------------------------------

Is Legislature's proposed amendment practical or political?

By Lloyd Dunkelberger , Herald-Tribune
/ Sunday, October 5, 2014
TALLAHASSEE — A former Supreme Court justice calls it “a bizarre solution searching for a non-existent problem.”
The Senate Judiciary chairman says it is necessary to avoid a “constitutional crisis” involving Florida’s highest court.
Voters will decide who is right when they weigh the pros and cons of Amendment 3 on the Nov. 4 general election ballot. It is the only constitutional amendment put on the ballot this year by the Legislature.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Tom Lee, R-Brandon, who helped draft the amendment, says it will resolve uncertainty over which governor gets to pick the new Supreme Court justices when the jurists’ terms end on the same day as the governor’s term.

[DanielAvery]

How bizarre! The best way around this would be to abolish mandatory retirement ages. I mean, this is Florida! 70 is the new 50.

[jghorton]

While on the Amendment subject, #2 ("medical" marijuana) is a real doozey! It has absolutely no controls or restrictions and, as an amendment, cannot subsequently be modified (like a law can). One major Florida Sheriff's department has suggested that Amendment #2 was written by a lawyer in C. Crist's campaign ... as a ploy to get the young voters out to vote. This one is a real disaster in the making.

[StarfishKey]

Let's please keep this thread on topic. There are other threads to discuss the other amendments. This thread is specifically about Amendment 3, which has not yet been discussed on this forum.

[rainroosty]

4 votes YES here.

[StarfishKey]

Originally Posted by DanielAvery

How bizarre! The best way around this would be to abolish mandatory retirement ages. I mean, this is Florida! 70 is the new 50.

Lol, I agree and disagree. The retirement age could perhaps be extended to an older age - maybe 75, but I do think there should be one. There is a point at which health ailments, including possible dementia, as well as just being out of touch, are an issue. One should not have so much power that one just stays indefinitely, since many justices DO stay on until they are literally forced off. I don't think that's best for our government, just because some don't know when to appropriately step down. There are many people who are active and lucid well into their 90s, but we cannot count on that as being the norm, and ultimately it makes appointments too big of a decision, to appoint someone for perhaps 60 years and just hope they are right for the job and remain appropriate the entire rest of their lives.

However, this amendment is not about retirement. In this particular case in 2019, there are 3 who are retiring. But this also would cover empty seats due to illness, death, disbarment... whatever may arise that causes a judge to vacate and need a new election on the January election day following a November election year.

It is completely insane to give the power of deciding our state's future to a governor whose term ends before that judge election even begins. That is a gross overreach of power, and not good for anyone in this state, regardless of what political side you are on.

There is no other job where you would give that power to someone - say, "You know, you're being fired in November of this year [for being incompetent, for embezzlement, for sucking, because there's someone else better.... whatever the reason], but we'd like you to make the new hiring decisions [by the way, these are life-term hires] for the company that will start in January of next year." That would NEVER happen in a million years! Only in FL does any politician think this makes sense... why not, they get paid for doing absolutely nothing anyway, I guess they have no concept of what is expected in real jobs and in the real world. But no, you hire people when you are a CURRENT manager, you don't make the choices as a former manager for the current manager who actually holds the job on the day of the hiring, when you've already been let go 2 months ago. The idea that this waste of time even comes up makes me sick. Even worse, that the wording on the ballot sounded good and I initially thought I should vote for it, because it sounded like it was saying the governor would elect someone to fill an empty seat so it doesn't just stay empty. But that's not at ALL what it means!

Vote NO on Amendment 3 - it is possibly one of the stupidest amendments on a ballot this year anywhere in the country.

[beachmouse]

It also sets up conflicts of interest between judge and a governor returning to the private sector. Easy enough to say 'if I appoint you to a judgeship, will you then do me a favor when my business has a case before you?'.

[Not_liking_FL]

Originally Posted by jghorton

While on the Amendment subject, #2 ("medical" marijuana) is a real doozey! It has absolutely no controls or restrictions and, as an amendment, cannot subsequently be modified (like a law can). One major Florida Sheriff's department has suggested that Amendment #2 was written by a lawyer in C. Crist's campaign ... as a ploy to get the young voters out to vote. This one is a real disaster in the making.

Why is it a disaster? I haven't read Amendment 2, but I really don't see a problem if it's used medically or for recreational use, if that is your problem with the Amendment. We waste a lot of resources and money criminalizing marijuana use when there are so many other serious drugs to focus on.

[StarfishKey]

Again, PLEASE be respectful of people here and stay on topic. The topic of this thread is AMENDMENT 3. If you want to discuss other amendments, there are other threads in which you can do so.

[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by jghorton

While on the Amendment subject, #2 ("medical" marijuana) is a real doozey! It has absolutely no controls or restrictions and, as an amendment, cannot subsequently be modified (like a law can). One major Florida Sheriff's department has suggested that Amendment #2 was written by a lawyer in C. Crist's campaign ... as a ploy to get the young voters out to vote. This one is a real disaster in the making.

Who knows, with the ads put out there by Morgan and Morgan pushing for "yes" votes on that amendment, they sure look to be in favor of it.