Gov. Scott vetoes appropriation for Supreme Court bifurcation study.

The future of a legislatively ordered study on bifurcating the Florida Supreme Court has been cast into doubt after Gov. Rick Scott vetoed the $400,000 appropriated for the study.

Scott released the details of his vetoes on May 26, the day before the Bar Board of Governors met and, among other things, reviewed the Bar's legislative activities in the recent tumultuous session. (Scott also vetoed $1 million for the Civil Legal Assistance Act--see story, page 4--that provides legal help for poor families.)

During that review, Legislative Committee Chair Ed Scales praised Bar President Mayanne Downs' efforts, saying she "turned what could have been a train wreck disaster into not that bad of a session."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The House, under Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, considered proposals to split the Supreme Court into civil and criminal divisions and add three justices, to have the Legislature take procedural rule-writing authority from the court, to require appellate judges and justices up for merit retention to get 60 percent approval to keep their seats, and to make all Judicial Qualifications Commission records public after charges are filed or when a case is otherwise closed.

The Senate balked at those ideas, but lawmakers did approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would be less far-reaching. That amendment, which goes to voters in November 2012, makes it easier for the Legislature to repeal a court procedural rule, requires Senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointments to the Supreme Court, and makes it easier for the House Speaker to access JQC files when they are needed for a legislative impeachment investigation.

When senators made it clear they would only go with the stripped-down amendment, money for the study was inserted into the budget, which was then in final negotiations between the two chambers.

The Senate also refused to go along with a separate House-approved bill that would have increased Gov. Rick Scott's authority over judicial nominating commissions and ended all Bar input into selecting commission members.

The legislative-ordered study would have looked at the efficiency, staffing, and structure of the Supreme Court, to include how separating the court into civil and criminal divisions would affect the handling of cases. The study would also look at the function of the judicial nominating commissions, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and the effectiveness of merit retention.

"I support...