Cuts threaten the judiciary's independence.

"By the way, welcome to Clearwater."

Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Robert J. Morris, Jr., closed his remarks to the Bar Board of Governors with those words in a slightly ironic tone.

Morris was on the board's July 25 meeting agenda under the rather innocuous description as welcoming the governors to the Sixth Circuit.

But before dispensing with that perfunctory duty, the judge delivered a rousing call for preserving judicial independence, which he said is being undermined--perhaps deliberately--by budget cuts imposed by the Legislature. He received a standing ovation from the board.

"The judicial branch was set up so judges could make hard decisions without fear of reprisal," Morris said. "The courts were designed to be the last bulwark against tyranny. For the courts to protect the people, they need the people to protect them from the other two branches of government by a constitutional amendment to guarantee minimal funding."

He began his talk by noting that an independent judiciary is a core value of the country. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence criticized King George III for obstructing the administration of justice and making judges dependent on his will alone. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, wrote compellingly on the need for an independent judiciary capable of making unpopular decisions, because only then can judges prevent attacks on freedom.

But despite those founding ambitions, the courts and judges have been the subject of many attacks over the years and attempts to bend the courts to the political will of the other two branches of government--including, Morris noted, an attack by Jefferson when he was president on a sitting Supreme Court justice.

"Financially strangling the judiciary is just another way to achieve that goal," he said, adding that the administration of former Gov. Jeb Bush was open about attempts to influence the judiciary.

As an example, he noted the tremendous pressure brought on Sixth Circuit Judge George Greer, who presided over the Terry Schiavo case. That case saw the Florida Legislature and Gov. Bush, and then Congress and President Bush, pass and sign legislation to overturn court rulings, only to have those bills tossed out as unconstitutional infringements on judicial powers.

With recent state budget decisions, legislators have another way to undermine courts, he said. Many legislators, Morris said, have been very staunch supporters of the third branch, but others have scarcely concealed their happiness at cutting court funding.

And while the state does have a legitimate budget crisis, cuts to the judicial branch will greatly impede its ability to function, he said, adding, "It isn't just budget-cutting; there is more there than that....

"I submit to you an independent judiciary in Florida has become all but a fiction. We're held hostage by the purse strings of the other branches of government," Morris said. "The third branch of government in this state is funded and treated like a state agency and an insignificant one at that.

"We are definitely at a crisis point and if you don't believe it, you will see it ... with your own eyes as this year unfolds."

He noted that the court system is undergoing an audit from the Legislature, a procedure he said is futile because the court system has so little money. "We don't need to have an audit; just compare us to anyone, anywhere," he said.

Morris reported that his Sixth Circuit encompasses a population of 1.5 million people, handles 420,000 cases annually, has 69 trial judges, and has a budget of $28 million. By comparison, New Hampshire has a population of 1.3 million, has 57 judges and handles 225,000 cases. Yet its budget is $70 million.

"We're a bargain by any reasonable standard you want to analyze," he added.

The tight budgets have meant that court employees have not had raises for three years and more than half make less than $40,000 a year, Morris said. Many can't afford to live in Pinellas County and face long commutes--now with high gas prices--to get to work. And they can make a third more if they go to work for county government.

He said the budget cuts from last year to this year have been devastating, and more cuts are on the way with the possible result that more court employees will have to be laid off by October 1.

Morris traced much of the problem to Revision 7 to Article V, an amendment approved by voters in 1998 and which became fully effective on July 1, 2004. That amendment required the state to take over more funding of the trial courts from counties. Critics warned legislators could use that to exercise more influence over the courts.

"They were right; it happened," he said.

Problems also stem from traditional weaknesses of the judicial system. Since judges--for sound ethical reasons, Morris noted--can't endorse political candidates, attend political rallies, or make political contributions, they have little that politicians value.

"We can't do anything to help or harm them," he said. "We just don't matter."

On top of that, there's the normal problem of whatever a judge decides, the non-prevailing party will be dissatisfied and prone to criticize the ruling, he said, and indeed lawyers now think little of unjustly criticizing judges.

Again because of ethical restraints, judges can't defend themselves and "realistically, there aren't enough of us to shout over the din anymore," Morris said.

Consequently, the only solution is to have funding guaranteed by a constitutional amendment, he said--a solution Bar President Jay White said the Bar might support.

"Everything you said we agree with. This is an absolutely critical issue," White told the judge after his talk. "We stand ready in lockstep to help you and assist you in any way we can. All I can see as a permanent fix is some kind of constitutional amendment."

By Gary Blankenship

Senior Editor