A Republican-allied campaign research and consulting firm surrendered more than 1,800 pages of records this week but asked a judge Thursday to block a demand by Democratic-leaning groups for more emails and documents in a lawsuit over last year’s legislative redistricting battle.

Data Targeting, Inc., a Gainesville-based political affairs firm, said in a motion filed with Leon Circuit Judge Terry Lewis that organizations seeking the records are on an “old-fashioned fishing expedition.”

Lawyers for the company add that documents sought may include “proprietary” information that could threaten relationships with clients and reveal business secrets.

Lewis is expected to rule Friday in the matter, part of a post-redistricting clash that is already in the Florida Supreme Court. There, justices are being asked to dismiss the lawsuit before Lewis, which was filed by the Florida League of Women Voters, Common Cause and the National Council of La Raza.

The voter groups contend that redrawn Senate districts should be thrown out because Republican leaders shared data and
maps with political consultants. The voter-approved Fair District amendments to the state constitution prohibit districts from being drawn to help or hurt incumbents.

But the organizations suing say such communication has become evident in the first rounds of data already provided by the Legislature and various consultants subpoenaed in the lawsuit.

Court documents filed earlier with Lewis show that emails were exchanged between aides to Senate President Don Gaetz,
House Speaker Will Weatherford and consultants who analyzed proposed maps.

The emails also show that in 2010, Rich Heffley, a Florida Republican Party consultant advising Gaetz, then the Senate’s
redistricting chairman, organized a “brainstorming” meeting at the state  party headquarters in Tallahassee.

Other documents in the case show that Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, and Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, who are both angling for Senate presidency in coming years, emailed district information to consultants for review.

The  Supreme Court last year ruled the Senate’s initial proposal for redrawing the 40-member chamber unconstitutional. The 5-2 decision found  the Senate plan protected incumbents, packed minority voters into districts and numbered Senate districts in a way to give incumbents more time in office.

It marked the first time since the court was brought into that stage of redistricting in 1972 that justices overturned a legislative map. The House map was approved by justices.

The Florida Supreme Court was asked Thursday to let a lawsuit proceed in circuit court on whether Republican legislative leaders violated new redistricting standards by sharing critical data and proposed maps with political consultants.

But a lawyer for the state House and Senate said the challenge by voters groups including the Florida League of Women Voters, Common Cause and National Council of  La Raza, should be dismissed.

Former Justice Raoul Cantero, representing the Legislature, said the state constitution allows only the Supreme Court to rule on the state’s redistricting plan — and validated the once-a-decade rewrite last year.

Cantero said that allowing the voters’ group challenge to proceed “opens up the possibility for serial redistricting litigation.”

Justice Charles Canady agreed.

“There can be a succession of claims and this can go on and on and on,” Canady warned. “We can be litigation the redistricting plan for the next decade.”

But Justice Barbara Pariente said that the voter-approved Fair District amendments to the constitution, which prohibit districts from being drawn to help or hurt incumbents, have complicated the existing constitutional standards for redistricting.

The “intent” of legislators is a factor courts must consider. That’s not likely possible to determine in the narrow time-frame given the Supreme Court for review of redistricting plans, she said.

“It may be a little messy until we get the law straightened out,” Pariente said.

The voters’ groups want a lower court to determine whether the Senate and congressional maps are invalid, because Republican leaders violated the Fair Districts standards. Court documents in that case filed in Leon County Circuit Court show that emails were exchanged between aides to Senate President Don Gaetz, House Speaker Will Weatherford and consultants who analyzed proposed maps.

The emails also show that in 2010, Rich Heffley, a Florida Republican Party consultant advising Gaetz, then the Senate’s redistricting chairman, organized a “brainstorming” meeting at the state party headquarters in Tallahassee. Other documents in the case show that Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, and Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, who are both angling for Senate presidency in coming years, emailed district information to consultants for review.

An organization supporting three Florida Supreme Court justices facing merit retention this fall began running a TV spot Tuesday blasting the “politicians in Tallahassee” for looking to overhaul the court.

The ad, by Defend Justice from Politics, a political spending committee, is airing a spot in West Palm Beach, Miami and Tampa markets that condemn the push to defeat the last three justices appointed by a Democratic governor. The spot calls it a “political power grab.”

Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince are facing what is shaping up as the most vigorous merit retention fight in Florida history.

A small tea party group, Restore Justice 2012 began criticizing justices last year over decisions that blocked measures pushed by the Republican-led Legislature, but the billionaire Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity also recently weighed in with an ad attacking the court.

When the Florida Republican Party’s executive board voted last month to oppose the justices, that seemed to crank up the merit retention contest to a new level.

Gov. Rick Scott said Tuesday he has no problem with the GOP’s decision, although he steered clear of expressing any opinion about the justices being targeted. Another prominent Republican, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, though, said he was uneasy with the party stepping into the non-partisan retention fight.

Atwater said, “it wouldn’t have been certainly a direction that I would have recommended.”

 “We as a party hold certain principles and we look for policies and candidates who are going to shape those with the expectation that justices are going to just constitutionally use good judgment and rule,” Atwater said.

Here’s Defend Justices’ TV spot: http://tinyurl.com/9tmz9eg

The group pushing to oust three Florida Supreme Court justices this fall has a new video ad on its site blasting them for taking part in a 2003 ruling ordering a new trial for a Death Row inmate.

The 5-2 decision, which included Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis in the majority, was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida justices had ruled the defendant’s lawyer had wrongfully conceded his client’s guilt without his approval.

But the federal justices said such explicit approval is not always needed.

Jesse Phillips, president of Restore Justice 2012, which has posted the web spot, said, “The court invented a way to give a confessed murderer the second chance at life…Pariente, Quince and Lewis should not defend this decision. They should apologize for it.”

The web ad, which runs more than two minutes, is not likely to appear on television in its current form. So far, only Americans For Prosperity, a tea party-allied organization founded by the billionaire Koch brothers has run a single TV spot condemning the three justices, the last appointed by a Florida Democratic governor.

But the Florida Republican Party has said it will work to unseat the justices. On Monday, the Florida Fraternal Order of Police and Florida Professional Fire Fighters weighed-in supporting the three justices.

“The very foundation of Florida’s independent judiciary is threatened,” said Jim Preston, FOP president. “Partisan politics simply destroys the integrity of the court system.”

While decrying partisan politics, the unions sided with Democrat Alex Sink over Republican Gov. Rick Scott in the last governor’s race. The unions are also awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on a challenge to whether Scott and the GOP-led Legislature violated the state constitution by ordering 3 percent payroll contributions from government workers enrolled in the Florida Retirement System.

Jeff McAdams, legislative chairman for the police union, said Scott is behind the effort to unseat the justices.

Scott has denied any involvement, and McAdams said his view is “my opinion.” But McAdams said Scott would welcome a chance to appoint three new justices to the court.

In merit retention, in place in Florida since 1976, voters get to decide “yes” or “no” whether a justice should receive another six-year term. No justice has been voted off the court since it was introduced.

Television spots blasting the Florida Supreme Court over the federal Affordable Care Act are scheduled to begin running today in West Palm Beach and other markets, paid for by Americans for Prosperity, the conservative grassroots group founded by the Koch brothers.

Slade O’Brien, Florida state director of the organization, said the ads don’t directly call for voters to oust Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince or Fred Lewis, who are up for merit retention on Nov. 6. Instead, O’Brien said the “intent is to call attention to judicial activism and legislating from the bench.”

The Florida Republican Party said last week that its leaders have agreed to oppose the three justices seeking new six-year terms. Another organization, Restore Justice 2012, has been active most of the year to unseat the three justices, the last appointments of late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles, although Quince was named jointly with incoming Republican Gov. Jeb Bush.

The AFP spots are the first TV ads aired in the campaign. The three justices have raised just over $1 million, combined, to defend themselves.

In its ad, AFP targets the Florida Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that upheld a lower court which stripped from the ballot a measure intended to block the federal health care overhaul from taking effect in the state.

The court ruled the proposed constitutional amendment was flawed because it promised guaranteed access to health care services without waiting lists, would protect doctor-patient relationships, and prohibit mandates that don’t work.

Opponents said the ballot summary deceived the public since the amendment did not directly address those issues, but was written solely to draw voter support against the federal law advanced by President Obama.

An effort to place the full text of the amendment before voters that year also was rejected. The Leon County Circuit judge who made the initial ruling, James Shelfer, said that to do so would amount to “legislating from the bench.”

A rewritten version of the proposal is now set to go before voters in November as Amendment 1.

Americans for Prosperity is a grass-roots activist organization founded by Charles Koch and part-time Palm Beacher David Koch.

The brothers, who run Koch Industries, an oil services company, back a host of conservative causes. Each has a net worth of $31 billion, which last week placed them fourth on Forbes magazine’s list of wealthiest Americans.

AFP on the national stage has run TV ads against Obama and provided phone banks, rallies and get-out-the-vote efforts central to the Republican Party’s takeover of the U.S. House in the 2010 elections.

The organization has fought climate change legislation and the Affordable Care Act, and push for limite

The Florida Republican Party’s entry into a campaign to unseat three state Supreme Court justices drew fresh outrage Monday from supporters who said it endangers an independent judiciary.

“I think the Republican Party should be concentrating on those races in the House and Senate,” said Alex Villalobos, a former Republican state senator from Miami. “To now divert money from those races into a total non-political, non-partisan race, is getting away from what they should be concentrating…No party has any business getting involved in this.”

The Florida GOP announced Friday that its executive board had voted to oppose the merit retention of Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince on Nov. 6.

A conservative group, Restore Justice 2012, has condemned the three justices as a liberal-leaning bloc on the seven-member court, which has stymied a variety of initiatives advanced by the Republican-ruled legislature in recent years.

But defenders of the justices said Florida voters created the merit retention system in 1976 to get politics out of the Supreme Court.

“Before we had that, we had terrible scandals involved” with the court, said Talbot ‘Sandy’ D’Alemberte, a former American Bar Association president, legislator and Florida State University law school dean and president. “What’s happening now is the Republican Party is trying to break something that was fixed.”

D’Alemberte, who served in the Legislature as a Democrat, said he would be “infuriated if the Democratic Party entered this. They’d have no business entering this.”

Curry, the GOP chairman, said no money that flows into the party for legislative races will be diverted to merit retention campaign. He also took issue with critics who say the move opens the door to outside special interest spending in the campaign.

Instead, Curry said the push to have the party work against the justices seeking six-year terms came from “the grassroots of the party.”

“This is coming right from the base of this party,” Curry said. “The more these (critics) push back, the more they’re likely to ignite the base.”

In merit retention, voters get to decide “yes” or “no” whether a justice should receive another six-year term. No justice has been voted off the court since it was introduced.

But some rulings by the Florida court in school voucher, abortion and ballot initiatives sought by the Republican-ruled Legislature have spawned anger from the political right. The three justices targeted were appointed by late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles, with Quince named jointly with former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush.

A study by the Brennan Center and the National Institute on Money in State Politics found that $38.4 million was spent on high court elections nationwide in 2009-10. Political parties and special interest groups, many of them backed by businesses or social activists, accounted for 30 percent of the spending.

The three justices have raised more than $1 million, combined, for their campaigns — with virtually all the cash coming from lawyers and law firms. The Florida Bar earlier this year also launched a $300,000 campaign to educate voters about the merit retention system for electing justices and appelate judges.

The Bar insisted the unprecedented effort had nothing to do with this year’s challenge to the high court justices. Instead, Bar leaders said polls show 90 percent of voters don’t understand merit retention.

While supporters of the justices say they worry about being overwhelmed by hard-hitting campaign ads, dollars haven’t flowed yet  to the opposition campaign.

Restore Justice has received almost all of its contributions from a South Florida doctor, Allan Jacob, who contributed $59,250, according to the group’s filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

State records show Restore Justice also has filed in Florida as an “electioneering communications organization,” which can influence races by running ads and mailings. The so-called ECO raised $1,075 between Aug. 13 and Sept. 14.

The Florida Republican Party said Friday it is adding its heft to an effort to unseat the last three state Supreme Court justices appointed by a Democratic governor.

State GOP Chairman Lenny Curry said the party’s executive board has voted to oppose the merit retention of Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince on Nov. 6.  A conservative group, Restore Justice 2012, has labeled the three a liberal leaning bloc on the seven-member court, which has stymied a range of initiatives advanced by the Republican-ruled Legislature in recent years.

Curry didn’t say whether the party would steer cash toward Restore Justice, which so far has reported only modest fund-raising. Instead, party leaders lashed out at the justices as activists, pointing to a specific death penalty ruling.

“While the collective evidence of judicial activism amassed by these three individuals is extensive, there is one egregious example that all Florida voters should bear in mind when they go to the polls on election day,” said GOP spokeswoman Kristen McDonald. “These three justices voted to set aside the death penalty for a man convicted of tying a woman to a tree with jumper cables and setting  her on fire.”

McDonald referred to a 2003 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that ordered a new trial for Joe Elton Nixon, convicted of murder in Leon County 19 years earlier. The three justices were part of a 5-2 ruling that found Nixon’s lawyer wrongfully conceded his client’s guilt without his approval.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida court in an 8-0 decision. Nixon is still on death row.

Supporters of the justices blasted the GOP’s entry into the campaign.

“Florida has had its experience with partisan political involvement in our judiciary and we know that it has been corrupting,” said Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, a former president of the American Bar Association and Florida State University president.

“ The announcement that the Republican Party is engaged in this effort would shock those wonderful Republican statesmen who helped create the merit selection and merit retention processes,” he added.  ”Surely we do not want to go back to the broken past.”

In merit retention, in place in Florida since 1976, voters get to decide “yes” or “no” whether a justice should receive another six-year term. No justice has been voted off the court since it was introduced.

But some rulings by the Florida court in school voucher, abortion and ballot initiatives sought by the Republican-ruled Legislature have fueled a kind of “kill the umpire” campaign, emerging from the political right. The three justices targeted were appointed by late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles, with Quince named jointly with former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush.

A study by the Brennan Center and the National Institute on Money in State Politics found that $38.4 million was spent on high court elections nationwide in 2009-10. Political parties and special interest groups, many of them backed by businesses or social activists, accounted for 30 percent of the spending.

Curry later the the Post that it was not yet decided whether the GOP would spend money on TV spots, mail pieces or other efforts to defeat the justices. “Those are operational decisions,” Curry said.

But he added the direction from his board members was clear. “They said, ‘make sure the justices are not retained,’” Curry said.

A lawsuit challenging whether Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature are meeting their constitutional duty to finance a high-quality public school system headed back to the trial court Tuesday after the state Supreme Court denied reviewing the case.

The lawsuit was  filed in 2009 in Leon County Circuit Court by Citizens for Strong Schools, a nonprofit organization.

The First District Court of  Appeal had narrowly ruled that the case could go forward in lower court. But Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, argued that the Supreme Court should review the decision — which justices denied Tuesday.

The case is widely seen as a key challenge to whether Florida schools are appropriately financed, based on a 1998 constitutional amendment approved overwhelmingly by voters and backed by the Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.

Here are the Florida Supreme Court’s filings in the case: http://bit.ly/yKXEwx  

 The amendment demands a uniform system of free public schools by requiring the state make adequate provision for an efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system. The broad language of the amendment became the grounds for justices throwing out former Gov. Jeb Bush’s private school voucher program in 2006.

The high court’s 5-2 ruling said it is unconstitutional to use tax money to send students to private schools.

Supporters of three Florida Supreme Court justices under fire from conservative activists offered a civics lesson Tuesday in urging voters to reject the drive.

Former Justice Raoul Cantero, who argued a pivotal state pension fund case before the court just last week, said the nation’s constitutional separation of powers should shield justices from the whims of politics.

Cantero said courts should not be subject to “politcal pressure. It is to be a fair and impartial branch of government,” he said.

In a conference call Tuesday, Cantero was among several speakers from Defend Justice from Politics, the committee supporting Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. An organization called Restore Justice 2012, loosely allied with the tea party movement, is working to have voters unseat the justices in their Nov. 6 merit retention contests.

In merit retention, created by the 1976 Florida constitution, voters get to cast ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes on whether justices should get another six-year term on the court. No justice has been defeated in a merit retention contest since it was initiated.

Lewis, Pariente and Quince, however, have been targeted as a liberal-leaning bloc by Restore Justice. The three also are the last justices appointed by a Democratic governor — the late Lawton Chiles — although Quince also was named jointly with former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush.

Dick Batchelor, another supporter of the justices, said conservatives should look to the Federalist Papers, another touchstone of American democracy, if they want more schooling in why justices should not be rewarded or punished for past decisions. “It’s really about raw politics,” Batchelor said of the campaign against the three.

Restore Justice last week issued a report card on the justices — giving each F grades on  a host of decisions issued since 1998. Included are a controversial death penalty ruling, business-related issues, and the rejection of Bush’s private school voucher program and a proposed ballot measure by the Republican-ruled Legislature that was aimed at blocking the federal health care overhaul in Florida.

Talbot ‘Sandy’ D’Alemberte, a former American Bar Association president, dismissed the analysis as a “very shoddy job.”

Former Sen. Alex Villalobos, a Miami Republican, said he also was concerned with “the amount of money coming into this election.”

The mismatch currently, though, seems to favor justices.

Pariente, Lewis and Quince have raised more than $1 million for their merit retention campaigns — almost all of it coming from the state’s legal community. The Florida Bar also is weighing in, launching a first-ever education campaign on merit retention, aimed at voters.

By contrast, Restore Justice has reported collecting $41,500 — all of it coming from Miami Beach doctor Allan Jacob.

Villalobos, though, said business groups and other court opponents have poured money into judicial races in other states at the last minute — a concern he harbors here.

“I hope I’m proven wrong,” Villalobos said.

The battle over 3 percent payroll contributions demanded of public employees by Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature in 2011 went Friday before the state Supreme Court, with a lawyer for workers saying it violates an almost 40-year pension fund guarantee.

About $2 billion is at stake — cash lawmakers expected to draw from the payments. It was used to plug holes in last year’s budget and this year’s spending plan, which took effect July 1.

 Lawmakers also could be forced to repay $786 million already collected from employees of  the state, school boards, counties, colleges, universities and special districts if justices agree with a lower court that found the payments unconstitutional.

Ron Meyer, attorney for the Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union, said much of the dispute turns on timing. The lower court found the move violated the constitution because it applied to all 623,000 employees in the Florida Retirement System. 

If lawmayers had sought the payments only from workers hired after the law took effect July 1 last year, they may have been on solid legal ground, Meyer conceded.

“You just can’t go back and change the deal midway,” Meyer said following arguments before the seven-member court.

Scott and lawmakers, however, say a 1981 court ruling involving the Florida Sheriffs Association, held that the Legislature could reduce the amount of benefits that would go to FRS members. Former Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero argued for the state before his former colleagues.

Scott called the change “common-sense public pension reform.”

“The legal question in the case is straightforward,” Scott said. “The Legislature relied on and carefully followed a thirty-year-old Florida Supreme Court case, which held that the Legislature can change the public pension system on a going-forward basis.  We therefore expect the Supreme Court to follow its own prior decision.”

Three Florida Supreme Court justices, targeted for ouster by some conservative activists, flexed some political muscle Wednesday by announcing they’ve got the backing of 23 former Florida Bar presidents.

The lineup of lawyers signed a resolution critical of what they labeled as an attempt to politicize the state’s high court. They also conceded that voters have a poor understanding of merit retention, which Justices Peggy Quince, Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente face in November.

The three justices, the last appointed by a Florida Democratic governor, are being opposed by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012, which cast the justices as a liberal-leaning bloc.

The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign. The three justices – combined – have already raised more than $1 million for their campaigns, virtually all of it coming from lawyers and law firms.

In merit retention, justices don’t face-off against an opponent. Instead,  voters get to decide, “yes” or “no,” on whether a justice should be given another six-year term.

“Voters need to send a message that politics has no place on the bench.  A vote ‘yes’ for retention sends that message loud and clear,” said former Florida Bar President Howard Coker.

A lawsuit by a conservative legal organization seeking to remove from the ballot the last three Florida Supreme Court justices appointed by a Democratic governor was dismissed Wednesday by a Leon County circuit judge.

Judge Terry Lewis sided with a lawyer for Justices Peggy Quince, Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente, who argued that the Southeastern Legal Foundation and its clients lacked “standing” to challenge whether the justices should appear on the November ballot.

John DeVault, attorney for the justices, said that only a state attorney or the Florida Elections Commission can determine whether a candidate should be removed from the ballot because of wrongdoing.

The justices received help in submitting their qualifying papers in April from staff at the Supreme Court, with assistants notarizing the justices’ documents just minutes before a deadline. The foundation said the move violated a state law barring public employees during working hours from working in the “furtherance” of someone’s candidacy.

Shannon Goessling, chief legal counsel for the foundation, said after Wednesday’s hearing that it planned to appeal Lewis’ ruling to the First District Court of Appeal.

The justices’ qualifying kerfuffle has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.

A lawsuit aimed at barring three Florida Supreme Court justices from the ballot this fall has taken another strange twist.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation said Friday that it has been frustrated trying to serve subpoenas to 14 court employees as part of its case against Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. A Supreme Court marshal has refused to allow a process server deliver the subpoenas inside the courthouse.

After two days of trying, only two subpoenas had been served by Friday — to Court Clerk Thomas Hall and to Anthony Stella, a law clerk for Lewis, said Shannon Goessling, the foundation’s executive director.

Phone calls to the offices of staff sought to be subpoenaed for depositions in the case have since gone unanswered, Goessling, told the Palm Beach Post.  

“This has been the strangest experience,” Goessling said. “The server has told us he serves people all the time in state of Florida public buildings. This should not be a big deal at all.”

But John DeVault, a former Florida Bar president and attorney for the justices, said the foundation was out of line with its allegations. Justices have filed a motion for a protective order to keep them and staff from being deposed, along with another motion to dismiss the case as frivilous.

With such motions pending, “no reputable attorney would ever move forward with subpoenas,” DeVault said. The foundation “obviously wants to try this matter by press release because they know they don’t have a good case.”

The conservative foundation is asking a Leon County Circuit judge to decide whether the justices should be removed from the November ballot because they received help from court staff in completing their candidacy papers earlier this year. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation of the justices’ action determined that the assistance they received was “common practice,” and dropped the matter.

Judge Terry Lewis has scheduled a first hearing in the case for Aug. 8, when he will consider the motions already filed.

But court staff walling off the Supreme Court building from legal process servers underscores the power of the justices in the matter, Goessling said. Lewis has not ruled on any of the matters before him — including a bid to block the subpoenas of court personnel. Until then, process serving should go on as usual, she said.

In April, the justices were helped by court staff to complete their campaign filing papers just minutes before a deadline for judicial qualifying. Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, later steered Gov. Rick Scott to a section of state elections law which bars candidates from using public employees during working hours in the “furtherance of his or her candidacy.”

A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor. Scott then forwarded Plakon’s request for an investigation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which completed its probe without recommending charges.

In an election year, it’s no surprise that the push to unseat the last three justices appointed by late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles is heavily tinged with politics.

Plakon was the sponsor of a proposed 2010 ballot measure aimed at bolstering Republican attempts to keep the federal health care law from being enacted in Florida, a goal Scott shares. The proposed ballot language was ruled unconstitutional by the court, although the measure has since been rewritten and looks certain to go before voters in November.

The justices’ qualifying kerfuffle has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.

Three Florida Supreme Court justices did not break the law when they used court staff to notarize campaign documents, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement decided.

But the matter is not settled. Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis, up for merit retention, now have to fend off a lawsuit seeking to strip them off the November ballot.

Gov. Rick Scott directed FDLE to investigate the issue last month after state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, steered the governor to a state election law prohibiting candidates from using state employees who are on the clock for campaign work.

Leon County State Attorney Willie Meggs found the judges apparently violated the law, but noted in a letter to FDLE that the notarization took less than a minute.

“It is well established that the law does not concern itself with trifles. In general, there is no prohibition against a notary employed by the state, notarizing a document for their boss, or even as a public service to the citizenry,” Meggs, a Democrat, wrote to FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey this week.

FDLE investigators agreed.

“It appears that the practice of using staff members to notarize campaign and other documents is common practice throughout the State and is done solely as a matter of convenience,” the FDLE report concluded.

The involvement of staff to notarize the financial disclosures and candidates oaths “was ancillary in nature and limited solely to notary services and the typing of the headers on these documents,” the report found. “Neither the Justices nor the Supreme Court staff interviewed considered the notarization of these documents to be, in any way, campaign related, and no evidence indicating an abuse of either position or public resources was revealed during the course of this inquiry.”

Scott issued a terse statement sounding displeased with FDLE’s results.

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Gerald Bailey and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for diligently reviewing the possible violations by Florida Supreme Court Judges. According to FDLE findings, it appears using state employees to complete and file campaign forms and other documents is ‘common practice.’ Now this case is before the courts where a determination will be made as to whether this ‘common practice’ is legal. Whatever the ruling, we will accept it and act accordingly,” Scott said.

In April, the justices interrupted oral arguments after being alerted that their campaign documents were not complete. Court staff helped to complete their papers, which were submitted just minutes before the qualifying deadline.

Gov. Rick Scott weighed-in Monday for the first time on three Florida Supreme Court justices whose actions on candidate qualifying day are now subject of an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

“They should comply with the law,” Scott said. “It’s the Supreme Court. You’d think they’d comply with the law.”

The three justices under fire, Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis, also are subject of a lawsuit filed Monday in Leon County Circuit Court. The suit, advanced by the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, seeks to remove the three from the November ballot “if no documentation exists to establish that their candidacies are proper and lawful.”

In April, the justices were helped by court staff to complete their papers just minutes before a deadline for judicial qualifying. Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, later steered Scott to a section of state elections law which bars candidates from using public employees during working hours in the “furtherance of his or her candidacy.”

A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor. Scott this month forwarded Plakon’s request for an investigation onto the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which has since begun a probe.

Plakon was the sponsor of a proposed 2010 ballot measure aimed at bolstering Republican attempts to keep the federal health care law from being enacted in Florida, a goal Scott shares. The proposed ballot language was ruled unconstitutional by the court, although a rewritten measure is expected to go before voters in November.

 The justices’ qualifying kerfuffle also has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.

A Leon County judge was wrong in ruling that Gov. Rick Scott and the Republican-ruled Legislature violated the state constitution last year by ordering 3 percent payroll contributions from public employees in the Florida Retirement System, state lawyers said in a new filing with the Florida Supreme Court.

At stake in the case before justices: close to $2 billion in the budgets of the state, counties and school districts.

Lawyers for Scott and other state officials are appealing the March ruling. Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford at the time said the state’s action overran contractual rights granted public employees in 1974, when the pension plan was converted to a “noncontributory system” for workers.

But former Justice Raoul Cantero, now a private attorney representing the state in the case, argued in a 44-page brief filed with the court that Fulford’s order ”runs contrary to decades of precedent.”

“The Legislature’s decision to modify the FRS system was fully within its prerogatives because the right of public employees to collective bargaining does not override the Legislature’s appropriations power,” Cantero wrote.

Also at the center of the state’s appeal is Fulford’s interpretation of a 1981 state Supreme Court decision involving the Florida Sheriffs Association, which pivoted on the Legislature changing benefits for future state employment. 

Cantero argued that in the Sheriffs ruling, justices held that the Legislature could reduce the amount of benefits that would go to FRS members in the future.

 But Fulford concluded that employees currently in the pension system have a property right to a noncontributory plan and that nothing in the Sheriffs’ case authorizes the Legislature to “change the fundamental nature of the plan itself.”

The lawsuit was filed last summer against Scott and other state officials on behalf of 11 public employees who are members of the retirement system. Those suing include members of the Florida Education Association, AFL-CIO, America Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Fraternal Order of Police and Service Employees International Union.

There are 655,000 government workers in the FRS. The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.

Scott and the Legislature last year used the $1.1 billion in pension fund payments to help close a yawning budget gap. The state’s 67 counties also saved about $600 million in pension payments by having employees contribute the 3 percent.

The same payments were incorporated into the $69.9 billion state budget set to take effect July 1.

If  justices uphold the lower court’s ruling, the state has said reserves would have to be deployed to cover the lost revenue.

As part of its appeal, the state also is arguing that Fulford exceeded her authority by ordering that payments be refunded to the public employees in the FRS.

Cantero, in the state’s appeal, acknowledged that the Legislature’s decision to require pension payments to close a budget hole was controversial. But he said that justices should affirm that such actions are within the power of lawmakers –not courts, to decide.

“While reasonable people may differ about whether the Legislature should have solved the states $3.6 billion budget shortfall in part by reducing employees’ future pension benefits, such difficult policy choices are for the Legislature,” he concluded.

Gov. Rick Scott asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Monday to review a legislator’s call for it investigate whether laws were broken by three Florida Supreme Court justices who received staff help in submitting their campaign papers to state elections officials.

Scott said that because the Florida Constitution does not give him power to remove justices, he cannot order the FDLE action requested by Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood.  But in a letter, Scott said that he was forwarding Plakon’s request to the agency, which can take investigate if ”it independently deems necessary and appropriate.”

“Like you, I believe it is important for the people of Florida to have full faith and confidence in all government officials — whether executive, legislative or judicial,” Scott told Plakon.

 The normally routine candidate qualifying by Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis played out publicly in April when the court took an hourlong recess during arguments in the state Senate redistricting case. That allowed justices to complete the paperwork needed for them to seek merit retention this fall.

With the help of court staff, the documents were filed with election officials only minutes before the deadline. But Plakon pointed Scott to a section of state elections law that prohibits candidates from using the services of public employees during working hours in the “furtherance of his or her candidacy.” A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor.

Since then, the issue also has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.

Dan Stengle, who is advising the justices on their merit retention campaign, said he welcomed FDLE’s review. But he also said he expected it to end quickly.

“There was no electioneering done here or anything that was illegal,” Stengle said. “There are much larger issues before the court to be talked about.”

Although the main assistance given justices by staff was in notarizing filing papers, Stengle and other supporters have said that action was simply ministerial. It didn’t equal campaign work, they said.

Plakon said he was prompted to request the FDLE probe following media reports about the justices’ qualifying. He said he was satisfied that Scott passed on his letter to the agency.

“They’ll look and evaluate if there’s enough out there to pursue,” Plakon said. “Otherwise, no harm, not foul.”

Keith Kameg, an FDLE spokesman, said the agency expected to decide “later this week on our course of action.”

Florida Supreme Court justices hammered a lawyer representing a Royal Palm Beach homeowner this morning in a seminal foreclosure case that could have far-reaching effects on other civil litigation.

The justices heard oral arguments in the unusual case involving Roman Pino, a drywall hanger whose lawsuit has already been settled. It’s the first foreclosure case to come before the state’s high court since the housing collapse.

Pino’s case against the Bank of New York Mellon focuses on whether lenders or other plaintiffs can escape penalties after filing bogus documents with the court simply by voluntarily dismissing the lawsuits. A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.

The Palm Beach County homeowner accused the bank of using false documents in its foreclosure proceedings against him. Pino and the bank have since settled the case, but his lawyers want the high court to decide whether trial court judges have the ability to overturn voluntary dismissals.

The justices peppered Amanda Lundergan, a lawyer with the Tom Ice law firm that represented Pino, with questions during oral arguments this morning. They seemed to have trouble understanding what harm Pino had suffered.

“What it seems like to me, you’re just looking for a ‘gotcha’ to get out of the mortgage. Am I wrong?” Chief Justice Charles Canady said.

“Absolutely wrong,” Lundergan said. “This is not about Mr. Pino. This is about the bank and the fraud that was committed.”

But Bruce Rogow, who represents the bank, said Pino’s lawyers are essentially asking the judges to change court rules about voluntary dismissals and that the foreclosure case could have far-reaching effects.

“We have not had problems. This is, because it’s a mortgage foreclosure case, because there are a lot of those cases, it has attracted a lot of attention. But I think we have to look at this in the universe of general civil litigation. And this has not been a problem in general civil litigation,” Rogow said.

In Pino’s foreclosure case, his lawyers challenged a document created by the Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.

Ice made headlines with the Pino case in 2010 when he was featured in a national magazine article about Florida’s so-called “foreclosure mills” and the discovery of allegedly fraudulent documents.

The robo-signing scandal was just breaking at the time, Florida’s foreclosure “rocket dockets” were full speed ahead, and David J. Stern’s Plantation-based firm was a foreclosure empire handling more than 100,000 cases statewide. It has since closed after losing most of its clients in the wake of the scandal.

With Gov. Rick Scott still mulling a lawmaker’s request for a law enforcement investigation, supporters of three Florida Supreme Court justices said Thursday no laws were broken when court staff  helped justices file qualifying papers with elections officials.

Attorney Barry Richard, who represented George W. Bush before the court following the 2000 presidential election, submitted a legal opinion to Dan Stengle, legal counsel for Justices Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente.

He denied that justices using court employees to notarize filing papers amounts to what opponents call a criminal misdemeanor. State law prohibits candidates from using the services of a public employee during working hours ” in the furtherance of his or her candidacy.”

“The act of affixing a notary seal to qualifying documents does not indicate that the notary endorses the candidacy of the person filing the documents,” Richard wrote. “It simply certifies that the notary has witnessed the signature and has confirmed the identity of the person signing.”

Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, has asked Scott to order the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to look into the controversy surrounding the justices qualifying.

The issue played out publicly last month. The court took an hourlong recess during arguments in the state Senate redistricting case to allow justices to complete their qualifying papers for merit retention this fall.

With the help of court staff,  the documents were filed with election officials only minutes before the deadline.

Since then, the issue has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.

Plakon said Thursday that to him, the case was an obvious violation. “Every candidate learns early on, you don’t use your staff for anything political,” Plakon said. “No one should be above the law.”

But Stengle, the justices’ legal counsel, also advanced an additional level of defense. He questioned whether the justices are really candidates.

 “Florida’s district court of appeal judges and Supreme Court Justices are not elected, but appointed through the merit selection process,” Stengle said. “Every six years, they are required by the Florida Constitution to participate in the merit retention process so that citizens of Florida may evaluate their job performance. Any documents that they are required to file by virtue of their positions as appellate judges or justices to qualify for merit retention are part of routine court business.”

With three Florida Supreme Court justices facing a stiff ballot challenge, the Florida Bar announced Monday it is kicking off a $300,000 campaign to educate voters about the merit retention system for electing  justices and appelate judges.

Scott Hawkins, a West Palm Beach lawyer and president of the Florida Bar, said the campaign is not designed to promote Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis, who have been targeted for defeat by Restore Justice 2012, a conservative political campaign.

Instead, Hawkins said that in voter forums and other informational sessions, Bar members will attempt to educate voters about the benefits of merit retention, used in Florida for almost four decades,and also in place in 33 other states.

Hawkins said Bar polls show that 90 percent of Floridians don’t understand merit retention, in which voters get to cast a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on whether a judge or justice should receive another term.

“Fair and balanced information is essential for Florida citizens to make informed decisions,” Hawkins said.

Joining Hawkins at the event was former Florida Gov. Reubin Askew, who helped spearhead the drive for voter-approved merit retention in 1976.  “If not merit retention — what?” Askew said, adding that it has helped shield judges and justices from politicking.

Merit retention was introduced as a fix after a host of scandals involving conventionally elected, state Supreme Court justices.  Indictments, impeachment and accusations of tampering with lower-court rulings clouded the court in the early 1970s.

But with the three Florida Supreme Court justices up for merit retention in November already raising almost $500,000, this year’s normally quiet merit retention contest already is sparking fireworks.

 ”Today, the community which has injected an unprecedented near half-million dollars into the retention races ironically held a press conference to warn about politicizing the court,” said Jesse Phillips, leader of the Restore Justice 2012 campaign. “We agree that the vote is in our court, and look forward to November when responsible citizens will decide whether or not to retain the justices based on their record of decisions.”

Restore Justice has emerged out of opposition to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that stripped from the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the federal health care overhaul from being implemented in Florida.

Of the justices who joined the majority in the 5-2 decision, Phillips already unsuccessfully tried to oust Jorge Labarga and James Perry in 2010.  This year’s focus on Quince, Lewis and Pariente, though, appears better organized and may draw more serious financing.

The justices have raised close to $500,000 already for their campaigns. Restore Justice so far has collected $41,650.

Hawkins said it was important for Floridians to know how to assess a performance by a justice, who he said could handle 8,000 cases during a six-year term.

“Is it fair to assess a judge on onel ruling, or should you assess them on the 7,999 other cases they have touched?”  Hawkins said.