The Florida Bar
Facebook logo Twitter logo YouTube logo LinkedIn logo Instagram logo
Rules, Ethics & Professionalism
Find a Lawyer
  1. Home
  2. For The Public
  3. Legal/Civics Education
  4. The Vote’s in YOUR COURT
  5. Merit Retention Poll

For The Public

Merit Retention Poll

Every two years, the Florida Bar’s Constitutional Judiciary Committee oversees a statewide merit retention poll that asks in-state Florida Bar members to rate judges and justices who are up for retention votes and of whom they have direct knowledge. The poll results may be useful to Florida voters.

2022 Florida Bar Merit Retention Poll Results

The poll was sent in August by mail and by email to Florida Bar members in good standing. Election Services Co. asked members to rate judges and justices up for retention votes and of whom they have direct knowledge.

Download Merit Retention Poll Results

Retention Poll Summary

Total Ballots Distributed Percent Returned
79,669 7.20%
Returns Number Percentage
Total Returns by Internet 3,482 60.68%
Total Returns by Mail 2,256 39.32%
Total Returns 5,738 100.00%

Results by Percentage

Florida Supreme Court

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Charles T. Canady 69% 31% 78% 22% 73% 27%
John D. Couriel 62% 38% 64% 36% 63% 37%
Jamie Grosshans 55% 45% 62% 38% 59% 41%
Jorge Labarga 87% 13% 83% 17% 85% 15%
Ricky Polston 72% 28% 76% 24% 74% 26%

First District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Ross L. Bilbrey 74% 26% 63% 37% 68% 32%
Susan L. Kelsey 73% 27% 65% 35% 69% 31%
Robert E. Long, Jr. 69% 31% 57% 43% 63% 37%
Lori S. Rowe 73% 27% 69% 31% 71% 29%
Thomas “Bo” Winokur 65% 35% 61% 39% 63% 37%

Second District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Patricia Kelly 80% 20% 77% 23% 78% 22%
Nelly N. Khouzam 90% 10% 80% 20% 86% 14%
Suzanne Youmans Labrit 76% 24% 65% 35% 70% 30%
Matthew C. Lucas 81% 19% 72% 28% 77% 23%
Robert James Morris 86% 14% 74% 26% 80% 20%
Stevan T. Northcutt 89% 11% 80% 20% 85% 15%
John K. Stargel 66% 34% 62% 38% 64% 36%
Craig C. Villanti 84% 16% 79% 21% 81% 19%

Third District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Alexander Spicola Bokor 78% 22% 68% 32% 73% 27%
Edwin A. Scales 82% 18% 78% 22% 80% 20%

Fourth District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Ed Artau 73% 27% 65% 35% 69% 31%
Cory J. Ciklin 83% 17% 77% 23% 80% 20%
Dorian K. Damoorgian 82% 18% 78% 22% 81% 19%
Jonathan D. Gerber 88% 12% 79% 21% 84% 16%
Robert M. Gross 89% 11% 81% 19% 86% 14%
Spencer D. Levine 82% 18% 79% 21% 80% 20%
Melanie G. May 88% 12% 78% 22% 84% 16%

Fifth District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain
Jay P. Cohen 82% 18% 76% 24% 79% 21%
James A. Edwards 76% 24% 69% 31% 72% 28%
Brian D. Lambert 76% 24% 66% 34% 71% 29%
Mary Alice Nardella 64% 36% 61% 39% 62% 38%
Daniel E. Traver 77% 23% 63% 37% 70% 30%
Carrie Ann Wozniak 72% 28% 66% 34% 69% 31%

Results by Numbers

Florida Supreme Court

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Charles T. Canady 1,473 650 1,243 347 2,716 997 3,713
John D. Couriel 758 470 953 528 1,711 998 2,709
Jamie Grosshans 652 534 926 579 1,578 1,113 2,691
Jorge Labarga 1,946 300 1,261 252 3,207 552 3,759
Ricky Polston 1,331 527 1,101 348 2,432 875 3,307

First District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Ross L. Bilbrey 389 136 359 211 748 347 1,095
Susan L. Kelsey 355 131 359 192 714 323 1,037
Robert E. Long, Jr. 349 154 334 254 683 408 1,091
Lori S. Rowe 443 164 390 178 833 342 1,175
Thomas “Bo” Winokur 332 177 371 240 703 417 1,120

Second District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Patricia Kelly 444 114 484 144 928 258 1,186
Nelly N. Khouzam 837 96 516 128 1,353 224 1,577
Suzanne Youmans Labrit 418 130 401 218 819 348 1,167
Matthew C. Lucas 468 107 427 163 895 270 1,165
Robert James Morris 578 98 434 149 1,012 247 1,259
Stevan T. Northcutt 746 89 515 132 1,261 221 1,482
John K. Stargel 414 210 397 243 811 453 1,264
Craig C. Villanti 578 113 459 125 1,037 238 1,275

Third District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Alexander Spicola Bokor 586 161 470 224 1,056 385 1,441
Edwin A. Scales 791 168 587 168 1,378 336 1,714

Fourth District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Ed Artau 553 202 450 240 1,003 442 1,445
Cory J. Ciklin 659 131 539 161 1,198 292 1,490
Dorian K. Damoorgian 760 163 558 153 1,318 316 1,634
Jonathan D. Gerber 865 121 535 141 1,400 262 1,662
Robert M. Gross 858 109 542 126 1,400 235 1,635
Spencer D. Levine 678 150 548 150 1,226 300 1,526
Melanie G. May 917 129 522 148 1,439 277 1,716

Fifth District Court of Appeal

HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE GRAND TOTAL
Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Retain Not Retain Total Responses
Jay P. Cohen 576 128 490 153 1,066 281 1,347
James A. Edwards 411 128 396 182 807 310 1,117
Brian D. Lambert 420 136 379 192 799 328 1,127
Mary Alice Nardella 282 159 379 244 661 403 1,064
Daniel E. Traver 421 127 366 216 787 343 1,130
Carrie Ann Wozniak 392 151 460 238 852 389 1,241
The election results and any additional information in connection therewith provided by ESC hereunder or in any report delivered by ESC in connection therewith are provided solely for the benefit of the Board of Directors or equivalent governing body of your organization in connection with the services provided hereunder or any other services rendered in connection therewith and shall not otherwise be reproduced for any other purpose, made public or provided to the membership of your organization (other than to report such actual election results) or any other person or entity without the express prior written consent of ESC.

Merit Retention Poll Rating Considerations

Instructions included with the poll sent to Bar members offer attributes that should be carefully considered in rating each incumbent. They include:

  • QUALITY AND CLARITY OF JUDICIAL OPINIONS. Are opinions written with clarity? Are they logical? Do they dispose of the issues addressed? Can they be readily used to advise clients?
  • KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW. Familiarity with and working knowledge of the rules of procedure and the statutory and case law of the state of Florida, as well as possession of adequate foundation in legal methods and principles.
  • INTEGRITY. Intellectual and moral honesty; absolute reliability; sincerity.
  • JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. The capacity to exercise the qualities of patience, tolerance and forbearance that will ensure self-control while searching for truth in the presence of distractions.
  • IMPARTIALITY. The ability to conduct official duties without regard to personal knowledge or personal feeling toward counsel or litigants.
  • FREEDOM FROM BIAS/PREJUDICE. Having no mental leaning or inclination for or against people by reason of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed or geographic origin, or for or against an expressed ideology.
  • DEMEANOR. Conduct that reflects an appreciation of the great prestige of judicial office.
  • COURTESY. Showing an attitude of respect for people.
▲