Both sides weigh in on ballot language challenge.

The merit selection and retention referendum ballot language approved by the legislature this year is fairer and more accurate than the wording it approved last year, and a challenge to that language -- which goes to voters in November -- should be dismissed, the state of Florida has argued to the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Tom Warner filed the state's response August 28 in a case brought by a group of South Florida attorneys earlier in the month. The lawyers argued the ballot language adopted this year by lawmakers was misleading. (See story in the September 1 Bar News.)

Five amicus briefs were also filed, including one by 20 former Florida Bar presidents. Led by 1995-96 President John A. DeVault III that brief supported the challenge to the language.

The four other amicus briefs, including one from the House of Representatives, backed the state's position that the ballet language should not be changed. The court was scheduled to hold oral arguments in the case September 12, after this News went to press.

Florida Bar President Herman Russomanno said the Bar is working very hard to educate voters about the merit process and how Florida's trial judges should be. selected.. He added it is essentional that all citizens become well informed on the issue by the November 7 eletion. Although the Bar's Board of Governors supports merit selection and retention for trial judges, the Bar's Executive. Committee recently reaffirmed the Bar's, earlier position during the legislative session not to become involved in the ballot language dispute.

At issue is the wording approved by the legislature earlier this year -- to replace language it originally adopted in 1999 to appear on the November 7 general election ballot in a constitutionally mandated referendum Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1998 that required the 2000 referendum in each circuit and county. Residents can choose between switching to a pure merit selection and retention system for the trial judges or keeping the method used now where end of term vacancies are filled by election and midterm vacancies by merit appointment with all judges standing for election at the end of their terms.

The 1999 language asked voters to vote "yes" or "no" on this question: "Shall circuit judges in the (insert circuit number) judicial circuit be selected through merit selection and retention?"

The 2000 language reads: "Shall the method of selecting circuit court judges in the (insert...