Merit retention.

Excuse me if this question seems naive, but why is it necessary or desirable for The Florida Bar to sponsor a "public education campaign on judicial merit retention," as announced in the April 15 News?

Is there genuinely something about the issue that renders it too difficult or complex for the nonlawyer public to grasp? When the Bar embarks on a campaign the stated goal of which is "to provide voters with some different processes on how to think about merit ...," it strikes me as disingenuous and, frankly, somewhat sinister. Isn't this really a preventive countermeasure to a perceived threat based on something that happened in Iowa? Isn't this a propaganda campaign disguised as education? How many more such preemptive "educational" campaigns can we expect to fund in the future? Will we be "educating" regarding local judges in their re-election campaigns next?

The article assures us that the "campaign is to promote the administration of justice by providing fair and balanced information regarding the importance of the [merit retention] vote." How is the administration of justice promoted by providing information about the importance of the vote? Isn't it obvious that the issue is of public importance simply by the fact that it is on the ballot? Who decides what information is "fair and balanced" and whether information "promotes an individual judge or justice?" If such judges or justices are somehow promoted or assisted through this "education," will they not be beholden and grateful to the lawyer or lawyers who promoted them, particularly those who did so in a high profile way? Is that not ingratiating or currying favor then? How does that advance the administration of justice? We are told, condescendingly I think, that retention "is a very difficult issue that many lawyers don't understand." Maybe I am one and am missing something, but what is so dumbfounding about "Should Judge 'X' be retained?"?

This unprecedented political involvement by the Bar in an upcoming state ballot issue and the disingenuous justification offered that it is simply "education" aimed at "the improvement of the administration of justice" and, therefore, within the Bar's purview, is disturbing. If some movement promoting ouster of particular judges materializes, as we are told it did in Iowa, then judges and individual Bar members should be prepared to set the record straight if misinformation or inaccuracies are spread. However, using the Bar as an instrument for...