Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
DeSantis-influenced panel adds bogus disclaimer to abortion amendment - Commentary
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2024/07/19/florida-panel-adds-disclaimer-to-abortion-amendment-on-november-ballot-election/74469448007/Florida legislators and Gov. Ron DeSantis have championed constitutionally dubious cultural-war laws so frequently that the names of otherwise obscure state and federal judges have become disturbingly familiar — the acerbic U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in particular — reflecting a repeated disregard for nation's values that has cost state taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees.
Often, those questionable laws don't merely raise the possibility of expensive litigation but almost explicitly invite it. DeSantis' administration, for example, has made it clear in court that he understood a new map of Florida congressional districts he strong-armed legislators into passing ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act and a voter-approved anti-gerrymandering amendment in Florida's constitution: He wanted a judge to declare those landmark protections for Black political power to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The congressional map, in other words, was a tool specifically designed to alter long-standing law using the court system.
Yet the Florida Legislature staff analysis of that map found there would be no fiscal impact on the state's budget, even as it was clear the state was likely to be paying out legal fees defending it. Curiously, despite the high-stakes legal fight it was intended to spark, the analysis didn't identify any constitutional issues with the map either.
This is often the case: Those staff analyses — reports that are supposed to take a detailed and at least passably neutral look at the financial impact of and legal issues that could arise from proposed legislation — have frequently failed to account for the near-certain possibility of costly litigation over the culture-war-obsessed claptrap pushed by the legislature and governor in recent years. The "Stop WOKE Act," which imposed draconian speech restrictions on educators and private businesses, and which has been blocked by federal courts? "None" — that is, no financial impact. A now-dead proposal that would have made it easier to sue journalists for defamation, raising obvious First Amendment problems? "None." The six-week abortion ban? "None."
Often, those questionable laws don't merely raise the possibility of expensive litigation but almost explicitly invite it. DeSantis' administration, for example, has made it clear in court that he understood a new map of Florida congressional districts he strong-armed legislators into passing ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act and a voter-approved anti-gerrymandering amendment in Florida's constitution: He wanted a judge to declare those landmark protections for Black political power to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The congressional map, in other words, was a tool specifically designed to alter long-standing law using the court system.
Yet the Florida Legislature staff analysis of that map found there would be no fiscal impact on the state's budget, even as it was clear the state was likely to be paying out legal fees defending it. Curiously, despite the high-stakes legal fight it was intended to spark, the analysis didn't identify any constitutional issues with the map either.
This is often the case: Those staff analyses — reports that are supposed to take a detailed and at least passably neutral look at the financial impact of and legal issues that could arise from proposed legislation — have frequently failed to account for the near-certain possibility of costly litigation over the culture-war-obsessed claptrap pushed by the legislature and governor in recent years. The "Stop WOKE Act," which imposed draconian speech restrictions on educators and private businesses, and which has been blocked by federal courts? "None" — that is, no financial impact. A now-dead proposal that would have made it easier to sue journalists for defamation, raising obvious First Amendment problems? "None." The six-week abortion ban? "None."