Democracy Dies In Sunshine (State)

The Florida Supreme Court reliably rubber-stamped the decision of the state’s Governor to remove a duly elected States Attorney from office

The Executive Order passes this test. It “names the grounds for [Worrell’s] suspension—neglect of duty and incompetence—and provides various factual allegations that reasonably relate to those grounds of suspension.” Israel, 269 So. 3d at 496. As this Court has stated, and as the Executive Order recites, “neglect of duty” means “the neglect or failure on the part of a public officer to do and perform some duty or duties laid on him . . . by law. It is not material whether the neglect be willful, through malice, ignorance, or oversight.” Id. at 496 (citation omitted); see also State ex rel. Hardee v. Allen, 172 So. 222, 224 (Fla. 1937) (finding it a neglect of duty “to knowingly permit [criminal conduct] and prefer no charges therefor”). And “incompetency” refers to “any physical, moral, or intellectual quality, the lack of which incapacitates one to perform the duties of his office.” Israel, 269 So. 3d at 496 (citation omitted). Incompetence “may arise from gross ignorance of official duties or gross carelessness in the discharge of them . . . [or] from lack of
judgment and discretion.” Id. (omission and alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Murder of irony

What is more, we have said that a suspension order does no infringe on a state attorney’s lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion where it alleges that such discretion is, in fact, not being exercised in individual cases but, rather, that generalized policies have resulted in categorical enforcement practices. 

Heaven forbid that “generalized policies” or politics play any role in this.

Dissent of Justice Labarga

where the suspension involves an elected official not subject to impeachment, such as Worrell, the Florida Constitution in effect authorizes the governor to override the will of the majority of voters who elected the official and to appoint a replacement of the governor’s choosing.

Because the bedrock of our democracy is the right to elect our public officials in fair and open elections, the suspension of a duly elected constitutional officer must be viewed as an enormous undertaking that requires clear justification. At the very least, the allegations must be confined to the specific grounds permitted by article IV, section 7(a), and the official in question should be apprised of the specific allegations giving rise to the suspension to ensure an opportunity to mount a meaningful defense…

In this case, I would grant Worrell’s petition for quo warranto relief because the allegations in the executive order are insufficient to provide her with sufficient notice to allow her to mount a meaningful defense.

Because the majority has decided not to do so, I respectfully dissent.

(Mike Frisch)