When you cast a ballot for governor or state legislator, the partisan affiliation—the 'R' or the 'D'—is clearly marked. The political stakes are obvious.
But what happens when the ultimate decisions affecting your life—from property rights and insurance costs to criminal justice and constitutional protections—are made by judges whose names appear on a ballot without any party label?
Welcome to the complex reality of the Florida Supreme Court. While the seats on the highest court are officially non-partisan, the political affiliations and judicial philosophies of the judges are perhaps the most crucial factor in determining the ideological direction of the entire state.
This isn't just Tallahassee insider baseball. Understanding the political landscape of the Florida Supreme Court is essential for any citizen who wants to grasp how their laws are upheld, struck down, or redefined.
In Florida, Supreme Court justices are not nominated through traditional partisan elections. Instead, the state employs a judicial selection system designed to prioritize merit over politics:
If the system is officially non-partisan, why does everyone discuss "Republican-appointed" or "Democrat-appointed" justices?
The answer lies in the appointment power. The judicial philosophies and legal interpretations that a justice brings to the bench are often strongly correlated with the political ideology of the governor who appointed them.
In Florida, recent appointments by Governors Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis have solidified a majority of justices appointed by Republican leaders, leading to a significant ideological shift on the court. While they might not carry a party card, their judicial philosophies are clearly distinct.
For the everyday Floridian, the affiliations—or more accurately, the philosophies—of the justices determine the outcome of monumental cases that directly impact their lives.
Here are three critical areas where the court’s ideological balance is paramount:
The Florida Constitution is often more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution (for instance, Florida has an explicit right to privacy). Historically, a more liberal court might interpret these state rights broadly, while a conservative court is more likely to interpret them narrowly, deferring policy decisions back to the state legislature. This affects everything from environmental regulations to reproductive rights.
The Supreme Court acts as the crucial check against the legislative and executive branches. If a court is ideologically aligned with the Governor and the Legislature, it may be less likely to strike down laws—even controversial ones—on constitutional grounds. Conversely, a court determined to assert its independence will act as a stronger restraint on government overreach.
The court makes final rulings on high-stakes civil litigation, including property insurance battles, medical malpractice awards, and workers' rights. The ideological direction of the court often signals its likely posture toward major corporations versus individual consumers seeking relief.
In an era of increasing political polarization, the Florida Supreme Court remains the final arbiter of justice in the state. By looking past the blank space where a party affiliation should be and focusing on the underlying judicial philosophy, we can better predict, and therefore better understand, the issues that will define Florida's future.
agri affiliatesIt is one of the foundational myths of the American legal system: judges are impartial arbiters, standing above the political fray. In Florida, this ideal is enshrined in how the Supreme Court justices are selected and retained. Officially, Florida's appellate justices run on a completely non-partisan ballot.
Yet, anyone watching the high-stakes decisions coming out of Tallahassee knows the court often appears deeply divided along predictable ideological lines.
If Florida’s Supreme Court justices don't have party affiliations, how does partisanship creep into the process? And what does this unique system mean for the future of jurisprudence in the Sunshine State?
Florida employs a system known as Merit Selection and Retention for its Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. This contrasts starkly with states that elect judges in traditional partisan or even non-partisan elections (like Texas or Ohio).
Here are the key features designed to keep politics off the bench:
Florida’s Supreme Court justices stand at one of the most interesting intersections of law and politics in the nation. While the state's judicial system is designed to promote independence through its merit retention process, the environment surrounding these appointments is intensely partisan.
When facing the ballot and deciding whether to retain a justice, voters are often left frustrated. Party affiliation—the standard shortcut for determining ideology—is intentionally absent.
So, what should voters ultimately conclude about the role of party politics in the retention of Florida Supreme Court justices? The conclusion is clear: We must look past the phantom ballot label and focus solely on competence and judicial philosophy.
Here is a summary of the debate, the most critical advice for voters, and practical steps for making an informed choice.
The Florida system creates a judicial paradox: it attempts to be non-political, but relies on inherently political actors.
The Merit Retention system was established precisely to shield judges from the pressures of competitive partisan campaigning. Judges are appointed by the Governor (who is political) and then face periodic "Yes/No" retention votes.
However, the reality is that appointments are ideological. Governors appoint judges who generally reflect their judicial philosophy. Over time, particularly as appointments shift the ideological balance of the court (as seen in recent years), outside groups begin injecting millions of dollars into retention campaigns to try and influence the vote based on perceived partisan leanings.
Voters often desperately try to assign an 'R' or a 'D' to the justices. This often results in simplifying complex judicial records into overgeneralized labels:
The key takeaway is that the official absence of party affiliation does not mean the court is apolitical, but it forces voters to engage in deeper research.
The single most important piece of advice when voting on judicial retention is to refuse to rely on inference and focus on the integrity of the judicial process itself.
When deciding whether a justice should keep their seat, your focus should shift from "Did they rule the way my party wanted?" to "Did they demonstrate the qualities required of a high court justice?"
1. Professionalism: Was the justice found to be competent by the official review bodies (e.g., the Florida Bar, performance review committees)? Do they manage their docket efficiently? 2. Philosophy: What is the justice's general approach to interpreting the law? Do they appear to interpret the text as written (textualism/originalism), or do they incorporate broader societal context and evolving norms (pragmatism/living constitutionalism)? Your vote should align with the judicial philosophy you believe best serves the state. 3. Performance: Was the justice fair, impartial, and respectful of due process? Have they shown integrity in their financial dealings and personal conduct?
The Goal: We are not choosing a legislator who will enact policy; we are choosing judges who will interpret the Constitution. The only metric that truly matters is their ability to uphold the rule of law fairly.
Since the ballot doesn't offer the simple shortcut of party affiliation, here is a step-by-step guide to conducting essential research before election day:
Before the election, official, non-partisan entities review the performance of judges facing retention. These reports are invaluable because they focus strictly on competence and ethical conduct, not ideology.
You cannot read every ruling, but you can look up a justice's most significant opinions in recent years. Focus on areas that matter most to you (e.g., property rights, criminal justice, voting rights).
In the absence of a party label, the easiest way to infer which way a justice leans is to see who is advocating (and spending money) for their retention or removal.
Use these endorsements not as a mandate, but as a map to the justice's perceived ideological place on the legal spectrum.
In the end, the Florida Supreme Court’s retention process successfully removes the artificial barrier of the party primary, but it replaces it with the demanding requirement of informed citizenship.
Voters must conclude that party affiliation is an irrelevant distraction. Our responsibility is to retain justices who are qualified, ethical, and whose judicial philosophy we trust to interpret the fundamental laws of Florida. By ignoring the political inferences and focusing on the three P’s—Professionalism, Philosophy, and Performance—we can ensure that the highest court serves the rule of law, not just the politics of the day.