A study criticizing a series of closely contested decisions by the Florida Supreme Court is boosting a campaign to oppose three high court justices in the 2012 election.

"The 'Activist' Journey of the Florida Supreme Court," by Colleen Pero of the American Justice Partnership, declares:

"Nowhere is [the] pattern of judicial activism more prevalent than in the state of Florida. Examples of the Florida Supreme Court making law can be found as early as 30 years ago, but over the past six to eight years, the court has increasingly ventured into areas commonly considered to be within the exclusive purview of the Legislature."

Pero, writing for the conservative Lansing, Mich.-based AJP, examined and commented on several high court rulings, including:

• Hoffman v. Jones (1973). "The adoption of comparative negligence over contributory negligence by judicial fiat."
• Armstrong v. Harris (2000). "By adding an 'accuracy requirement' to the Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court declared a constitutional amendment passed by 72.8 percent of the voting public unconstitutional." The amendment dealt with death-penalty issues.
• Delgado v. State (2000). "Adding the word 'surreptitiously' to the burglary statute resulting in the setting aside of two murder convictions."
• D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co. (2001) (joined with General Motors Corp. v. Nash). "Comparative negligence applies in product liability cases, yet not in crashworthiness cases."
• Bush v. Holmes (2006). "By creating a new constitutional mandate, the court held invalid a scholarship program allowing students in chronically failing public schools an opportunity to either attend a better performing public school or receive a voucher to attend a private school."

Applying a set of "activist indicators," such as "the use of vague or general constitutional language to defeat the clear will of the voters or acts of the Legislature," Pero's study blisters the court.

In Delgado, she notes that the court's added language to the state's burglary statute makes it "more difficult to prosecute felons."

In Bush, Pero said the court "created a new constitutional mandate."

Several issues, notably liability laws, continue to ping-pong between the Legislature and the courts as the two branches wrestle for ultimate control.

With most of the cases decided by bare 4-3 majorities, conservative critics say they want to educate and motivate voters for the 2012 elections, when three Supreme Court justices are up for retention votes.

One of the justices, Barbara Pariente, was rated "activist" on all nine decisions analyzed by Pero.

Justice Peggy Quince earned the "activist" tag on seven of the nine rulings.

Justice Fred Lewis was graded "activist" on six of the nine cases.

Jesse Phillips, head of Citizen2Citizen, a conservative judicial-watch group based in Orlando, said the court continues to strike an "activist" pose.

Since Pero's report was published, the high court threw the anti-Obamacare "Florida Health Care Freedom Act" off the November 2010 ballot. Pariente, Quince and Lewis all voted to reject the measure.

In a late-developing campaign last year, Citizen2Citizen and like-minded tea party groups opposed judicial retention of Jorge Labarga and James Perry, two other justices who ruled against the Freedom Act.

Both were retained, but Labarga's 58.9 percent approval was the lowest percentage for a Supreme Court justice since Florida began retention voting in 1978.

This election cycle, Phillips says conservatives are starting earlier and will be better organized. He said 130 supporters have signed up at the website, floridajudicialreview.com. He said another "50 to 75" tea party and 9/12 groups have joined the coalition.

Phillips said additional issues, as well as other judges, will come under scrutiny.

"At this point, we're educating. This is an important election," he said.

Mayanne Downs, president of the Florida Bar, was not immediately available to comment on the AJP report, but told Sunshine State News earlier:

"A fair and impartial judiciary -- able to make decisions without fear of political reprisal -- is a fundamental value of America, and was central to our Founding Fathers' core values about this country.

"The idea of attacking judges who have served this state admirably and well on the basis of a single opinion is disturbing, and not in keeping with these American values, in my opinion," Downs said.

--

Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (772) 801-5341 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.