Maxwell: Florida’s abortion vote: 3 justices tried to block it. 2 will be on your ballot this fall | Commentary

You probably know by now that you’ll be asked to vote this fall on the biggest reproductive-rights issue in Florida history.

The ballot question essentially asks voters one thing: Do you believe government should be able to impose restrictions and criminal penalties on abortion? It doesn’t get into the nitty-gritty of which limits you might prefer — just the overarching question of whether you believe politicians should make that decision for women.

It’s a pretty basic concept. And the people who wanted Floridians to answer that question followed all the rules to get it on the ballot. Yet they almost didn’t succeed.

While the majority of justices on Florida’s very conservative Supreme Court ruled that citizens clearly have a right to vote on this issue, three tried to deny you that right. The decision was a 4-3 split.

The three justices who tried to block the vote are all new and relatively inexperienced. And interestingly, two of them will have their own names on the ballot this fall — and need your permission to keep their seats.

That’s because Florida has something called “merit retention” for judges. It’s Florida’s version of checks and balances. Governors appoint Supreme Court justices. But Floridians get to decide whether those judges keep their seats in the first election cycle after they’re appointed.

That means the fate of the two newest justices, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso, will be decided this fall. Both have been on the bench less than two years. Both tried to block the abortion vote, as well as the statewide vote recreational marijuana. And both have careers marked by controversy.

Francis’ appointment was the most controversial — so much so that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ own Supreme Court justices refused to approve her as a justice the first time he tried.

The reason they rejected Francis was simple. She was unqualified. I don’t mean that she was unqualified in my opinion. I mean that she literally did not have the minimum 10 years legal experience required by the Florida Constitution to serve on the state’s highest court.

DeSantis apparently thought the rules didn’t apply to him. The court told him otherwise. So he had to wait and try again later when Francis met the minimum qualifications, bypassing scores of far more experienced judges to appoint one in her early 40s who could potentially remain on the Supreme Court for three decades or longer.

Francis was so inexperienced, her original resume revealed she hadn’t taken a single case to verdict as a lawyer. But what she lacked in experience, she made up for in political ideology — with membership in three different chapters of the conservative Federalist Society.

Florida Supreme Court rejects Francis appointment, orders DeSantis to pick new justice by Monday

Sasso’s controversy came earlier in her career when she was nominated to a state appeals court by a judicial nominating commission whose members included her own father-in-law.

Florida has 22 million residents. But this commission claimed one of most qualified lawyers in the state just happened to be the daughter-in-law of one of its own members.

Florida may be America’s third largest state. But we do politics like Dogpatch, USA.

Michael C. Sasso recused himself from the formal vote on his daughter-in-law. But the nepotistic stench still reeked. And both Sasso’s father-in-law and husband are still involved in the state’s judicial-nominating process — in an arrangement that would make Li’l Abner feel right at home.

Maybe you don’t care how these justices got on the bench or whether they were the most qualified ones for the job. Maybe you care more about their work product once they get there. In that case, I recommend you read the recent abortion rulings for yourself.

Keep in mind: These rulings aren’t supposed to be about anyone’s personal feelings on abortion. I genuinely believe honest people of good faith can reach different conclusions about that.

The only issue that was supposed to be litigated here was whether the citizens who wanted to get this issue on the ballot followed all the rules and drafted a clear, understandable amendment.

A majority of the justices said they did, concluding the ballot summary was “plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed amendment” and that neither the summary nor amendment were misleading.

The majority went a step further by saying that anyone who tried to argue that the language was unclear or misleading was taking “a flight from reality.”

Which brings us to the dissenters.

In her dissent, Sasso called the amendment “overwhelmingly vague” and argued that many of the key words in it were confusing — including the phrase “healthcare provider.”

I’m not sure what’s confusing about that. A health care provider is one who provides health care. A majority of the justices acknowledged that. But Sasso argued the term did not have “any sort of widely shared meaning” and said she found it “highly unlikely that voters will understand the true ramifications of this amendment.” Her opinion was backed by Francis and the third dissenting justice, Jamie Grosshans.

You can read the rulings for yourself on the Supreme Court’s website (supremecourt.flcourts.gov). There are 81 pages worth. See what makes sense to you.

It’s important to note that if Floridians vote to retire either Sasso or Francis this fall — something Floridians have never done before — neither would be replaced by some flaming liberal justice. DeSantis would still have the power to name a replacement. Only this time he might choose someone with more experience, qualifications — and maybe a commitment to letting democracy prevail.

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com