POLISCOPE
Back to feed
SB 2512EFLORIDA · STATEWIDESession 2026E
High Impact

Changes to the Number of Judges in Florida Courts

Original title: Judges

May 12, 2026

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

Residents in the affected counties and circuits may see changes in court processing times and judicial availability as the number of judges is adjusted to meet local caseload demands.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Residents of affected judicial circuits and counties

These residents will be served by a different number of circuit or county court judges than previously authorized.

What changed

Last recorded activity May 12, 2026.

What's next

Introduced.

Summary

This bill increases the number of circuit and judges in several Florida counties and s to manage court caseloads. The changes are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Why It Matters

Residents in the affected counties and circuits may see changes in court processing times and judicial availability as the number of judges is adjusted to meet local caseload demands.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are the number of judges being changed?
The bill amends Florida Statutes to adjust the number of circuit and judges, typically to align judicial resources with population growth and caseload volume in specific jurisdictions.
When do these changes happen?
The new judicial positions are authorized to take effect on July 1, 2026.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Lobbying Activity

CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES INC.

on behalf of California Judges Association

Senate LDAView filing →

FLANNERY GROUP THE

on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEYS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Senate LDAView filing →

CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES INC.

on behalf of CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION

Senate LDAView filing →

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2026

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In support of the No Political Enemies Act to prevent executive punishing of individuals or organizations for constitutionally protected speech, belies, viewpoints, or political participation. In support of amending DHS appropriation riders to improve oversight and accountability on Department of Homeland security surveillance. In opposition to the SAVE America Act and requiring unnecessary barriers to voting. In support of increasing federal election security funding and identifying risks to election security and confidence posed by executive orders. In support of encouraging congressional members to uphold their legal duty to seat future lawfully elected members of Congress from the midterm elections. In support of reforms that strengthening the independence of the Judge Advocate General Corps through reforms of notification to Congress on before their termination. In support of reforms to protect independent legal advice within DoD and protect the non-political nature of the armed forces. In support of reforming the national emergencies framework to prevent executive abuses. Advocating in support of reforms that would prevent the executive branch from harming First Amendment rights of broadcasters.

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2026

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In support of the No Political Enemies Act to prevent executive punishing of individuals or organizations for constitutionally protected speech, belies, viewpoints, or political participation. In support of amending DHS appropriation riders to improve oversight and accountability on Department of Homeland security surveillance. In opposition to the SAVE America Act and requiring unnecessary barriers to voting. In support of increasing federal election security funding and identifying risks to election security and confidence posed by executive orders. In support of encouraging congressional members to uphold their legal duty to seat future lawfully elected members of Congress from the midterm elections. In support of reforms that strengthening the independence of the Judge Advocate General Corps through reforms of notification to Congress on before their termination. In support of reforms to protect independent legal advice within DoD and protect the non-political nature of the armed forces. In support of reforming the national emergencies framework to prevent executive abuses. Advocating in support of reforms that would prevent the executive branch from harming First Amendment rights of broadcasters.

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2025

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In support of the No Political Enemies Act to prevent executive punishing of individuals or organizations for constitutionally protected speech, belies, viewpoints, or political participation. In support of exploring enhanced reporting requirements to the Defense Production Act in the NDAA and tariff issuance to prevent executive abuse. In opposition to FCCs retaliatory agenda by advocating for meaningful First Amendment limits on its ability to punish news organizations for the content they air or the editorial decisions they make. In consideration of the Empowering SPEECH Act which primarily aims to protect First Amendment rights and related freedoms on college campuses In support of reforms that strengthening the independence of the Judge Advocate General Corps through reforms of notification to Congress on before their termination. In opposition to arbitrary deployments of National Guard members to American cities. In support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act to address abuses of presidential power, election security and integrity, and improving the system of checks and balances. In opposition to requiring documentary proof of citizenship through the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. In support of increasing federal election security funding. In support of maintaining the constitutional separation of powers ensuring that Congress has the power of the purse.

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2025

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In opposition to threats against the judiciary that erode constitutional safeguards, including the JUDGES Act (H.R. 1702), the PEPPER Act (H.R. 1789), the NORRA Act (H.R. 1526), and the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act. In support of more robust funding to protect Congressional Members, staff, and families but also greater transparency on the threats. In support of judiciary security amendments to the reconciliation bill, (H.R.1) In support of the MARSHALS Act (S.1873) to transfer oversight of the U.S. Marshals to the judicial branch. In support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act to prevent abuses of Presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference In support of reforms to the National Emergencies Act. In opposition to the SAVE Act (H.R.22) and impediments to the right to vote. In support of federal election security funding. In opposition to the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. In opposition to Executive impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds. In opposition to politicization of the armed forces. In support of more transparency around RIFs and protection of the federal civil service. In opposition to tax bill language designating non-profits as "supporters of terrorism." In opposition to reducing the funding of the Government Accountability Office.

Voting Record

Sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift100% confidence

Broad Judicial Expansion

The bill mandates increases in judicial positions across six major judicial circuits and seven counties, indicating a systemic effort to address court capacity.

Connected Entities

Sources

Open source document

openstates.org

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance75
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy20
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz10
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record