Procedural rulemaking proposal still on the table: yet vote on the measure keeps getting postponed.

House lawmakers again debated a constitutional amendment to give the legislature more control over writing procedural rules for the courts, although this time in a new format.

On April 14, the House Justice Council took up H JR 1007, by Rep. Dick Kravitz, R-Orange Park, which originally would have created a judicial conference to propose criminal rules of procedure, similar to the process used to create procedural rules in the federal courts--except the legislature would appoint members of the panel instead of the Supreme Court. But when the bill was taken up, Kravitz offered a strike all amendment--which rewrote the bill--which the committee accepted.

HJR 1007 now contemplates having the Supreme Court continuing to adopt procedural rules, but amends the constitution to give the legislature the power to overturn those rules by a simple majority of each chamber, instead of the current two-thirds vote of the membership. The measure also holds that nothing in the constitution "shall be construed to restrict or limit the power of the legislature to enact laws relating to substantive or procedural matters." The resolution also says the courts may not regulate any aspect of collateral or postconviction judicial review of a criminal judgment or sentence, except as authorized by general law, and that no procedural rule shall be inconsistent with general law or modify any substantive right.

While the pros and cons of the bill were thoroughly debated, at the end of the day, the committee deferred a final vote on the resolution at the request of its sponsor. The bill was again scheduled for a vote April 18, but time allotted for the House Justice Council expired before the bill was taken up. It was back on the council's April 22 agenda, after this News went to press.

"I understand there are some folks who feel like this bill is a challenge to the separation of powers," said Kravitz, an insurance/ business consultant. "Let me assure those who feel that way that my respect for the judicial branch is unwavering. Having said that, let me point out that as an elected official, who has to seek a vote of confidence from the public every two years, that I feel the legislative branch of government votes to carry out public policy in the form of the statutes and then are told the will of the public is null and void because it falls under procedural jurisdiction of the judicial branch. To me that violates the separation of powers doctrine."

Rep. Dean Cannon...