Case Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voting Restoration Amendment and Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voting Restoration Amendment (FIS)

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16-1785, SC16-1981

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-1785 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTING 
RESTORATION AMENDMENT. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-1981 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTING 
RESTORATION AMENDMENT (FIS). 
 
[April 20, 2017] 
 
LEWIS, J. 
 
The Attorney General of Florida has requested this Court’s opinion as to the 
validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the 
Florida Constitution.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), 
Fla. Const. 
FACTS AND BACKGROUND 
On October 4, 2016, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an 
advisory opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition sponsored by Floridians 
 
 
- 2 - 
for a Fair Democracy (“the Sponsor”) and circulated, pursuant to article XI, section 
3 of the Florida Constitution.  The Sponsor submitted a brief supporting the 
validity of the initiative petition.   
 
The full text of the proposed amendment to article VI, section 4 of the 
Florida Constitution states: 
Article VI, Section 4. Disqualifications.— 
 
(a) No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or 
any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote 
or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. 
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any 
disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall 
terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all 
terms of sentence including parole or probation. 
 
(b) No person convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense 
shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil rights. 
 
(bc) No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to any 
of the following offices: 
 
(1) Florida representative, 
(2) Florida senator, 
(3) Florida Lieutenant governor, 
(4) any office of the Florida cabinet, 
(5) U.S. Representative from Florida, or 
(6) U.S. Senator from Florida 
 
if, by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served 
(or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight 
consecutive years. 
 
The ballot title for the amendment is: “Voter Restoration Amendment.”  The 
ballot summary states: 
 
 
- 3 - 
This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony 
convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including 
parole or probation.  The amendment would not apply to those 
convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be 
permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote 
to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. 
 
On October 28, 2016, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference 
forwarded to the Attorney General a financial impact statement on the initiative 
petition.  On November 1, 2016, the Attorney General requested this Court’s 
opinion as to whether the financial impact statement prepared by the Financial 
Impact Estimating Conference on the constitutional amendment is in accordance 
with section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2016).  The financial impact statement 
regarding the Voter Restoration Amendment states: 
The precise effect of this amendment on state and local government 
costs cannot be determined, but the operation of current voter 
registration laws, combined with an increased number of felons 
registering to vote, will produce higher overall costs relative to the 
processes in place today.  The impact, if any, on state and local 
government revenues cannot be determined.  The fiscal impact of any 
future legislation that implements a different process cannot be 
reasonably determined.   
 
No briefs or comments were submitted to this Court in response to the 
financial impact statement.   
ANALYSIS 
Standard of Review 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
We have explained the standard of review for citizen initiative petitions as 
follows: 
“This Court has traditionally applied a deferential standard of 
review to the validity of a citizen initiative petition and ‘has been 
reluctant to interfere’ with ‘the right of self-determination for all 
Florida’s citizens’ to formulate ‘their own organic law.’ ”  In re 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. 
Conditions (Medical Marijuana I), 132 So. 3d 786, 794 (Fla. 2014) 
(quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. 
for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 494 (Fla. 2002)).  
This Court does “not consider or address the merits or wisdom of the 
proposed amendment” and must “act with extreme care, caution, and 
restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote 
of the people.”  In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Limits or Prevents 
Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply, 177 So. 3d 235, 242 (Fla. 2015) 
(quoting In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative 
Requiring Legis. Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions & 
Exclusions Serve a Pub. Purpose (Fairness Initiative), 880 So. 2d 630, 
633 (Fla. 2004)). 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Rights of Elec. Consumers Regarding Solar Energy 
Choice (Solar Energy), 188 So. 3d 822, 827 (Fla. 2016). 
When this Court renders an advisory opinion concerning a proposed 
constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative 
process, the Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the 
amendment itself satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, 
section 3, Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and 
summary satisfy the clarity requirements of section 101.161, Florida 
Statutes. 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions 
(Medical Marijuana II), 181 So. 3d 471, 476 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation–Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore 
 
 
- 5 - 
Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands (Water & Land Conservation), 123 So. 3d 
47, 50 (Fla. 2013)).  Accordingly, we are obligated to uphold the proposal unless it 
is “clearly and conclusively defective.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla.’s 
Amend. to Reduce Class Size, 816 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2002). 
Single-Subject Requirement  
Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution establishes the 
general requirement that a proposed citizen initiative amendment 
“shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected 
therewith.”  Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const.  “In evaluating whether a 
proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement, the 
Court must determine whether it has a logical and natural oneness of 
purpose.”  [Medical Marijuana II], 181 So. 3d 471, 477 (Fla. 2015) 
(internal citations omitted).  The single-subject requirement applies to 
the citizen initiative method of amending the Florida Constitution 
because the citizen initiative process does not afford the same 
opportunity for public hearing and debate that accompanies other 
constitutional proposal and drafting processes.  See Advisory Op. to 
the Att’y Gen. re 1.35% Prop. Tax Cap, Unless Voter Approved, 2 So. 
3d 968, 972 (Fla. 2009). 
 
The single-subject rule prevents an amendment from (1) 
engaging in “logrolling” or (2) “substantially altering or performing 
the functions of multiple aspects of government.”  Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed 
Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So. 2d 
367, 369 (Fla. 2000).  The term logrolling refers to a practice whereby 
an amendment is proposed which contains unrelated provisions, some 
of which electors might wish to support, in order to get an otherwise 
disfavored provision passed.  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re: Protect 
People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease, & Other Health 
Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1191 (Fla. 2006). 
Solar Energy, 188 So. 3d at 827-28.  This Court has further explained that “[a] 
proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail; 
 
 
- 6 - 
rather, it is when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of 
multiple branches that it violates the single-subject test.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla. 
1998).   
Here, the initiative has “a logical and natural oneness of purpose,” 
specifically, whether Floridians wish to include a provision in our state constitution 
permitting the restoration of voting rights to Floridians with felony convictions, 
excluding those with murder and felony sex offenses, once they have completed all 
of the terms of their sentences.  The proposed amendment’s provision excluding 
persons with convictions for murder or felony sex offenses is directly connected 
with this purpose.  Furthermore, this exclusion removes a class of offenders from 
automatic voter restoration eligibility based on the nature of their offenses, thus 
removing the possibility that voters be forced to “accept part of an initiative 
proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the constitution which 
they support.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legis. 
Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 180 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Amend. to Bar Gov’t From Treating People Differently Based on Race in 
Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000)).  Therefore, the proposed amendment 
does not engage in impermissible logrolling.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or 
 
 
- 7 - 
Magnetic Levitation System, 769 So. 2d at 369 (holding that “there is no 
impermissible logrolling” where “[t]he only subject embraced in the proposed 
amendment is whether the people of this State want to include a provision in their 
Constitution mandating that the government build a high speed ground 
transportation system”).   
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not substantially alter or 
perform the functions of multiple branches.  As it currently stands, the Governor, 
with the approval of two members of the Florida Cabinet, may restore civil rights 
on a case-by-case basis.  See art. IV, § 8, Fla. Const.  If the proposed amendment 
passes, the Governor and the Florida Cabinet would still review the restoration of 
civil rights on a case-by-case basis, but only for those persons convicted of murder 
or felony sexual offenses, rather than for all felony offenders, which would reduce 
their current obligations in an insignificant way.  “[I]t [is] difficult to conceive of a 
constitutional amendment that would not affect other aspects of government to 
some extent.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Ltd. Casinos, 644 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 
1994).  A proposed amendment having some effect on government does not 
necessarily result in the substantial alteration or performance of functions of 
government.  See Solar Energy, 188 So. 3d at 830 (“Although the proposed 
amendment would affect the government in a literal sense by requiring State and 
local governments to comply with a provision of the Florida Constitution while 
 
 
- 8 - 
retaining their existing abilities, it does not cause the ‘precipitous’ or ‘cataclysmic’ 
changes to the government structure indicative of substantially altering or 
performing the functions of multiple branches of government.”).  Therefore, the 
proposed amendment does not substantially alter or perform the functions of 
multiple branches of government.   
Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed amendment complies with the 
single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.   
Ballot Title and Summary 
 
Section 101.161(1) provides the following requirements for the ballot title 
and summary: 
The ballot summary of the amendment or other public measure shall 
be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the 
chief purpose of that measure. . . .  The ballot title shall consist of a 
caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is 
commonly referred to or spoken of.   
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).  
The purpose of these requirements is “to provide fair notice of the 
content of the proposed amendment so that the voter will not be 
misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed 
ballot.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 
2d 798, 803 (Fla. 1998).   
 
This Court’s review of the validity of a ballot title and summary 
under section 101.161(1) involves two inquiries: 
 
First, the Court asks whether “the ballot title and 
summary . . . fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose 
of the amendment.”  Right to Treatment and 
 
 
- 9 - 
Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 
2d [491, 497 (Fla. 2002)].  Second, the Court asks 
“whether the language of the title and summary, as 
written, misleads the public.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care 
Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1998). 
Medical Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 478 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Fairness Initiative Requiring Legis. Determination That Sales Tax Exemptions & 
Exclusions Serve a Pub. Purpose, 880 So. 2d 630, 635-36 (Fla. 2004)).  “While the 
ballot title and summary must state in clear and unambiguous language the chief 
purpose of the measure, they need not explain every detail or ramification of the 
proposed amendment.”  Solar Energy, 188 So. 3d at 831 (quoting Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re 1.35% Prop. Tax Cap, 2 So. 3d 968, 974 (Fla. 2016)).   
 
Here, the ballot title and summary comply with the respective word 
limitations.  The title is three words in length and the summary contains sixty-two 
words, which is within the word requirements of section 101.161(1).   
Thus, the remaining issues are: (1) whether the ballot title and summary 
inform voters of the chief purpose of the proposed amendment; and (2) whether the 
ballot title and summary are misleading.  We conclude that both issues are satisfied 
here.   
 
First, the ballot title and summary clearly and unambiguously inform the 
voters of the chief purpose of the proposed amendment.  Read together, the title 
and summary would reasonably lead voters to understand that the chief purpose of 
 
 
- 10 - 
the amendment is to automatically restore voting rights to felony offenders, except 
those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses, upon completion of all terms 
of their sentence.   
Second, the ballot title and summary also do not mislead voters with regard 
to the actual content of the proposed amendment.  Rather, together they recite the 
language of the amendment almost in full.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Res., 959 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2007) (upholding a 
summary, which reiterated almost all of the language contained in the 
amendment); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Florida Marriage Prot. Amend., 926 
So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2006) (same); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Medical Liab. 
Claimant’s Comp. Amend., 880 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2004) (same).   
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we conclude that the ballot 
title and summary comply with the clarity requirements of section 101.161.   
Financial Impact Statement  
 
We have also detailed our obligation to review financial impact statements: 
We have an independent obligation to review the financial 
impact statement to ensure that it is clear and unambiguous and in 
compliance with Florida law.  See Adv. Op. to Atty. Gen. re Use of 
Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions, 132 So. 3d [786, 809 (Fla. 
2014)] (citing Adv. Op. to Atty. Gen. re Referenda Required for 
Adoption & Amend. of Local Gov’t Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 
963 So. 2d 210, 214 (Fla. 2007)).  Article XI, section 5(c), of the 
Florida Constitution provides, “The legislature shall provide by 
general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this 
section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the 
 
 
- 11 - 
probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative 
pursuant to section 3.”  Additionally, section 100.371(5)(a), Florida 
Statutes (2015), provides that the financial impact statement must 
address “the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to 
state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative.”  
Section 100.371(5)(c) 2, Florida Statutes (2015), requires the financial 
impact statement to be “clear and unambiguous” and “no more than 
75 words in length.”[1] 
 
We have explained that our “review of financial impact 
statements is narrow.”  Adv. Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land 
Conservation, 123 So. 3d [47, 52 (Fla. 2013)].  We address only 
“whether the statement is clear, unambiguous, consists of no more 
than seventy-five words, and is limited to address the estimated 
increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to the state or local 
governments.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Local Gov’t 
Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 963 So. 2d [210, 214 (Fla. 2007)]. 
Medical Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 479. 
We conclude that the financial impact statement complies with the word 
limit and meets the other statutory requirements set forth in section 100.371(5), 
Florida Statutes (2016).  The financial impact statement is seventy-four words in 
length, thus complying with the seventy-five-word limit, and is limited to the 
subject of the estimated increase or decrease in revenues or costs to state and local 
governments.  Additionally, it clearly and unambiguously states that there are 
likely increased costs associated with the influx of felons registering to vote, but 
that the exact amount of cost increase cannot be determined.  Moreover, the 
                                          
 
 
1.  The language of section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2016), is identical 
to the 2015 version quoted in Medical Marijuana II.   
 
 
- 12 - 
financial impact statement clearly and unambiguously explains that the Financial 
Impact Estimating Conference could not determine the impact on state and local 
government revenue.  Therefore, we conclude that the financial impact statement 
complies with section 100.371(5).  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Growth 
Mgmt. Initiative Giving Citizens Right to Decide Local Growth Mgmt. Plan 
Changes, 2 So. 3d 118, 124 (Fla. 2008) (“Overall, the financial impact statement is 
necessarily indefinite but not unclear or unambiguous.”); see also Medical 
Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 479 (holding that the financial impact statement’s 
indeterminate conclusion with regard to the increase or decrease in costs or 
revenues to state and local government nonetheless complied with section 
100.371); Water & Land Conservation, 123 So. 3d at 52 (same); Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Health Hazards of Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1195 (Fla. 2006) 
(same).   
CONCLUSION  
 
In conclusion, we hold that the proposed amendment meets the legal 
requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and that the ballot 
title and summary complies with section 101.161(1).  Moreover, we conclude that 
the financial impact statement complies with section 100.371(5).  Accordingly, we 
approve the amendment for placement on the ballot.   
 
It is so ordered.   
 
 
- 13 - 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and 
LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Two Cases: 
 
Original Proceedings – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Ellen B. Gwynn, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Jon L. Mills of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Miami, Florida; and Andrew M. 
Starling, Orlando Florida, 
 
 
for Floridians for a Fair Democracy, Sponsor 
 
Ion Sancho, Former Supervisor of Elections for Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida; 
and Dr. Brenda Snipes, Supervisor of Elections for Broward County, Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
 
as Proponents