Recall Reality and The Rule Of Law. Stay Informed Here...

Before you are beset by the inevitable barrage of local headlines screaming "Stoltzfus Stifled!" and Recallers dancing in the streets snorting "Nyah, nyah nah nyah nyah! Victory!" please, please, take a quiet moment in your busy day to actually read Judge Nicholas' Order HERE merely denying Mr. Sotltzfus' request for an emergency determination of the legitimacy of the Recall Petition. There is no nyah nyah victory here, only a delayed decision. And, perhaps, delayed justice.

Richard Harrison, Mr. Stoltzfus' lawyer, correctly points out HERE in a statement released today that this is a "matter of fundamental due process" and has understandably filed an expedited appeal to the 2nd District Court. One expects that the court will give the appeal speedy and due consideration. In the meantime, a thoughtful reading of the appealed order indicates that Judge Nicholas did not say Mr. Stoltzfus is not entitled to the result he seeks. Judge Nicholas merely says he is not prepared to render a decision as to that result NOW and that it is "appropriate for the court to determine the legal sufficiency of the grounds contained in the petition for recall once the recall process (is) completed, but prior to the election itself." In other words, once the next round of signatures (15% of registered voters this time) along with the Stoltzfus defense statement is certified. Of course, as Judge Nicholas significantly points out, that is only IF that next round of signatures is certified.

So, as you can see, Judge Nicholas only addresses the request for an expedited ruling on the merits of the case, not the merits themselves. It's a nuance but a very important nuance and one the local media will predictably ignore in favor of its tried and true tabloidian tunnel vision. The judge sums it up quite clearly in his last paragraph by essentially telling us "Hey, what's the hurry here? The law gives Mr. Stoltzfus plenty of opportunity to make his case once the recall folks have made theirs. I'll take a look at it then." And when he does, if he does, he will be bound by precedent to heed the words of former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead:

"We agree that the public policy underlying the [recall statute] does not mandate that officials who have been duly elected to their positions of responsibility should have to face an extraordinary recall election with every vote they cast or statement they make. As pointed out by Justice McFarland in Unger v. Horn, 240 Kan. 740, 732 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1987), “voters may be angry with an elected official over how he or she voted on a controversial issue, the firing of a public employee upon taking office, how the officer behaved at some function, or a hundred other reasons - none of which is a valid ground for recall under [the applicable recall statute].” (emphasis added) Garvin v. Jerome, 767 So. 2d. 1190 (Fla. 2000).

Yes, ultimately, the rule of law will determine whether a fractional but intrusive minority of citizens can cloak themselves in the robes of a judge and exert the powers of a jury on a fellow citizen neither accused nor convicted of the violation of any law. Justice delayed is not always justice denied. Sometimes it just takes a while to get there.

All the best.

Bill Yanger