Case Title: Advisory Opinion To The Attorney General Re: Funding Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC06-2183

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
________________________ 
________________________ 
Supreme Court of Florida  
Nos. SC06-2183 & SC06-2261 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: FUNDING 
OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. 
[May 31, 2007] 
PER CURIAM. 
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, including the corresponding financial impact statement.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.  For the reasons 
expressed below, we approve the amendment, ballot title and summary, and the 
financial impact statement for placement on the ballot.   
I. FACTS 
On October 9, 2006, the Attorney General received a ballot initiative from 
the Secretary of State seeking to amend the Florida Constitution to provide for the 
funding of embryonic stem cell research. This amendment is sponsored by 
Floridians for Stem Cell Research and Cures, Inc.  The full text of the proposed 
amendment reads as follows: 
Article X of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended by inserting 
at the end thereof the following section: 
Funding of embryonic stem cell research. (a) There is hereby 
appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of 
Health the sum of $20 million in each of the ten fiscal years beginning 
with the year in which this amendment is adopted.  With such funds 
the Department of Health shall make grants for embryonic stem cell 
research using, or using the derivatives of, human embryos that, 
before or after formation, have been donated to medicine under donor 
instructions forbidding intrauterine embryo transfer. 
(b) For this purpose, an embryo is "donated to medicine" if and only, 
under conditions that satisfy applicable requirements for informed 
consent and do not involve financial inducement to any donor, the 
persons from whose cells the embryo originates give the embryo to 
another under written instructions that the recipient shall use the 
embryo in biomedical research or therapy.  "Financial inducement" 
includes any valuable consideration but excludes (1) reimbursement 
for reasonable costs incurred in connection with a donation, and (2) 
reasonable compensation to a donor from whom an oocyte is 
recovered, and to the donor of any other cell recovered by an invasive 
procedure, for the preparation for and time, burden, and risk of such 
recovery.   
(c) The funds appropriated hereby shall be granted to nonprofit 
academic and other research institutions situated within the state.  
Grantees shall be chosen on the basis of a recommended ordering of 
applications by scientific merit as reckoned in a peer review process 
by disinterested experts in the relevant fields. 
(d) This provision shall be self-executing and effective immediately 
upon adoption.  This appropriation shall be nonlapsing such that any 
portion of a yearly appropriation not distributed shall accumulate for 
distribution in subsequent years.  The Department of Health is 
authorized to promulgate administrative rules for the implementation 
hereof. 
- 2 ­
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is “FUNDING OF 
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.”  The summary for the proposed 
amendment states: 
This amendment appropriates $20 million annually for ten fiscal years 
for grants by the Department of Health to Florida nonprofit 
institutions to conduct embryonic stem cell research using, or using 
derivatives of, human embryos that, before or after formation, have 
been donated to medicine under donor instructions forbidding 
intrauterine embryo transfer.  An embryo is “donated to medicine” 
only if given without receipt of consideration other than cost 
reimbursement and compensation for recovery of donated cells. 
The Financial Impact Statement for this proposed amendment, as prepared by the 
Financial Impact Estimating Conference, provides:  “This amendment requires the 
state to spend $20 million a year for ten years.” 
II. GOVERNING LAW 
The citizen ballot initiative process is recognized in the Florida constitution: 
The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion 
or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, 
provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those 
limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but 
one subject and matter directly connected therewith.  
Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. 
The process begins when the sponsoring party files a petition and copy of 
the proposed amendment with the custodian of state records, the Secretary of State.  
Id.  Accompanying this petition are signatures collected from electors across the 
state.  Id.  Once the Secretary of State verifies that the threshold number of valid 
- 3 ­
signatures has been reached, notice of the initiative is sent to the Attorney General, 
who then must request an advisory opinion from this Court.  Art. IV, § 10, Fla. 
Const.; § 16.061, Fla. Stat. (2006).  The advisory opinion is to address the ballot 
initiative’s compliance with article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which 
requires that an amendment by ballot touch upon “one subject and matter directly 
connected therewith.”  Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const. 
Through prior case law and advisory opinions, this Court has explained its 
standard of review as follows: 
The Court's inquiry, when determining the validity of initiative 
petitions, is limited to two legal issues: whether the petition satisfies 
the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida 
Constitution, and whether the ballot titles and summaries are printed 
in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161, 
Florida Statutes. 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People 
Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 2000) (citing 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care 
Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1998); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re 
Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 974 
(Fla. 1997)). 
When reviewing a proposed amendment to determine compliance with the 
single subject and ballot summary requirements, this Court has stated that it will 
“not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment.”  Advisory Op. to 
- 4 ­
the Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 
2006) (citing Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People Differently Based on 
Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d at 891). Additionally: 
[W]e have recognized that we “must act with extreme care, caution, 
and restraint before [we] remove[] a constitutional amendment from 
the vote of the people.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 
1982).  In elaborating on this latter principle, we have noted that “the 
Court has no authority to inject itself in the process, unless the laws 
governing the process have been ‘clearly and conclusively’ violated.” 
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Right to Treatment & 
Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 498-99 (Fla. 
2002).  It is within the framework of these fundamental principles that 
we review . . . proposed amendment[s] and ballot language. 
Fla. Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1233 (second and third alterations 
in original). 
A.  Single-Subject Rule 
The single-subject requirement has two components: “(1) it prevents 
‘logrolling,’ a practice that combines separate issues into a single proposal to 
secure passage of an unpopular issue; and (2) it ‘prevent[s] a single constitutional 
amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple 
aspects of government.’ ”  Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Advisory Op. to the 
Att’y Gen. re the Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amendment, 880 So. 2d 675, 677 
(Fla. 2004)).  To comply with the single-subject requirement, “a proposed 
amendment must manifest a ‘logical and natural oneness of purpose’ in order to 
satisfy the single-subject requirement.”  Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. 
- 5 ­
Amendment, 880 So. 2d at 677 (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 990 
(Fla. 1984)). “This determination requires the Court to consider whether the 
proposed amendment affects separate functions of government, as well as how it 
affects other provisions of the constitution.”  Id. (citing In re Advisory Op. to the 
Att’y Gen.––Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 
(Fla. 1994)). 
1.  Logrolling 
Logrolling occurs when “several separate issues are rolled into a single 
initiative in order to aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular 
issue.”  In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.––re Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 
1336, 1339 (Fla. 1994).  Thus, part of the goal of this Court’s single-subject 
scrutiny is to “avoid voters having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose 
in order to obtain a change which they support.”  Fine, 448 So. 2d at 993.  The 
Court uses a “oneness of purpose” standard, which looks at whether a proposed 
amendment “may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection 
as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.  Unity of 
object and plan is the universal test . . . .”  Id. at 990 (quoting City of Coral Gables 
v. Gray, 19 So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 1944)). 
The amendment’s opponents, Citizens for Science and Ethics, Inc. 
(“Citizens”), argue that the proposed amendment does logroll, combining the 
- 6 ­
questions of state funding for the research with embryo and cell donor 
compensation and cloning.  Specifically, Citizens argues that voters will be forced 
to decide if they want the state to fund stem cell research at all, if the state should 
fund it at the specified level, if the donors should be compensated, and finally if the 
state should also support “therapeutic cloning.” 
We find that the proposed amendment only addresses one subject, 
embryonic stem cell research.  While the amendment mandates a specific level of 
state funding for such research, and also provides definitions and directions as to 
how the Department of Health will award grants in this respect, including issues of 
compensation, these provisions are “logically related to [the amendment’s] 
purpose.”  Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Patient’s Right to Know about 
Adverse Med. Incidents, 880 So. 2d 617, 620 (Fla. 2004); see Advisory Op. to the 
Att’y Gen. re Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Educ., 824 So. 2d 161, 165 
(Fla. 2002) (holding that proposed amendment’s details regarding funding did not 
constitute logrolling since they merely “provide[] the details of how the 
amendment will be implemented”).  We conclude, therefore, that the proposed 
amendment does not reach any other subject and thus does not constitute 
logrolling. 
2.  Altering or Performing the Functions of Multiple Branches of Government 
- 7 ­
A single-subject violation can also occur when a proposed amendment 
“alters or performs the functions of multiple branches of government.”  Fla. 
Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1235.  We have clarified that “[a] 
proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail; 
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 the 
Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 
(Fla. 1998) (emphasis added) (citing Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1340).  
This Court has also repeatedly emphasized that the rationale of the single-subject 
restriction in general is to guard against “precipitous” or “cataclysmic” changes to 
the government structure.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Additional 
Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 650 (Fla. 2004). 
The amendment’s opponents argue that the $20 million annual funding 
requirement impinges on both the legislative appropriations process and the 
executive veto power and is similar to the initiative this Court struck in Advisory 
Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Requirement for Adequate Public Educ. Funding¸703 So. 
2d 446 (Fla. 1997).  Furthermore, Citizens argues that the affected governing 
agency in this instance is not left with wide discretion in implementing the new 
grants. 
- 8 ­
In Public Education Funding, this Court found that a proposed amendment 
requiring that the Legislature spend forty percent of its annual budget on education, 
not including lottery proceeds and federal funds, violated the single-subject rule.  
703 So. 2d at 447.  In finding that the proposed amendment addressed more than 
one subject, the majority concluded that the “amendment would substantially alter 
the legislature’s present discretion in making value choices as to appropriations 
among the various vital functions of State government.”  Id. at 449.  In addition, 
the Court found that the Governor’s line-item veto power would be limited since 
he would be unable to veto any specific appropriation within the education 
appropriation if the veto would reduce the education appropriation to less than the 
required 40 percent. Id.  Thus, since the amendment was found to “substantially 
affect more than one function of government and multiple provisions of the 
Constitution,” it was stricken from the ballot.  Id. at 450.  We later commented on 
these restrictions in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Protect People, 
Especially Youth, From Addiction, Disease, and Other Health Hazards of Using 
Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1194 (Fla. 2006).  “This massive restriction on 
appropriations also limited the entirety of the State’s other functions to the 
remaining sixty percent of the budget, rendering many other government functions 
impossible to fund.”  929 So. 2d at 1193. 
- 9 ­
However, given the disparity between the required appropriations in the 
respective amendments, we find that the “massive restriction” at issue in Public 
Education Funding can be distinguished from the instant initiative because the 
substantial impact on the Legislature’s function we found in Public Education 
Funding is simply not present in this proposed amendment.  The amount required 
for research is relatively nominal when compared to the State’s annual budget 
overall1 and cannot be characterized as substantially restricting the Legislature’s 
ability to fund other programs.  Further, mandating some specific annual 
appropriation is an essential ingredient necessary to accomplish the narrow goal set 
forth in the amendment: the state financing of embryonic stem cell research.  
Mandating research without designating a funding level would leave the goal of 
the amendment solely to legislative discretion. 
We find the proposed amendment more closely resembles the one we 
approved in Protect People, Especially Youth. The amendment at issue in that case 
also specifically required the Legislature to appropriate a fixed amount annually, 
equal to fifteen percent of the tobacco settlement funds paid to the state in 2005, 
for the purposes of fulfilling the anti-tobacco programs detailed in the amendment.  
926 So. 2d at 1189-90.  The appropriation required greatly exceeded the amount 
1. We take judicial notice of the fact that the budget for the State of Florida 
for fiscal year 2007-2008 is approximately $72 billion.  See Fla. Conf. Report on 
SB 2800 (2007) at 428 (General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007-2008).   
- 10 ­
mandated in the subject amendment.  However, we concluded that the amendment 
in that case was not “impermissibly rigid and restrictive to the legislative and 
executive branches.”  Id. at 1193.  Consistent with our decision in Protect People, 
Especially Youth, we conclude that the subject proposed amendment does not 
“substantially” alter or perform the functions of multiple aspects of government, 
and thus does not violate the single-subject rule.  See, e.g., Save Our Everglades, 
636 So. 2d at 1340. 
We also note that section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2006), now requires 
the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to provide a statement to the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot detailing the costs 
stemming from a proposed constitutional amendment.  Hence, the fact that an 
amendment contains a specific funding requirement is not necessarily dispositive 
of whether it substantially alters or performs the duties of the Legislature. 
B.  Ballot Title and Summary 
The title and ballot summary of any proposed amendment must comply with 
section 101.161, Florida Statutes, which states: 
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is 
submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment 
or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous 
language on the ballot . . . followed by the word “yes” and also by the 
word “no,” . . . .  Except for amendments and ballot language 
proposed by joint resolution, the substance of the amendment . . . shall 
be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the 
chief purpose of the measure. . . .  The ballot title shall consist of a 
- 11 ­
caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is 
commonly referred to or spoken of. 
§101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). 
The “clear and unambiguous” requirement ensures that a voter has notice of 
the subject matter and issues addressed by the proposed amendment.  Fla. Marriage 
Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1236 (quoting Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 
1341).  In evaluating a proposed amendment: 
The proper analysis to assess whether [the] ballot title and summary 
meet this requirement focuses on two questions: (1) whether the ballot 
title and summary, in clear and unambiguous language, fairly inform 
the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2) whether the 
language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public. 
Id. at 1236 (citing Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Additional Homestead Tax 
Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 651-52 (Fla. 2004)).  The ballot title and summary do 
not have to discuss every detail or consequence of the amendment, but they must 
be sufficiently “accurate and informative.”  Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re 
Protect People, Especially Youth, 926 So. 2d at 1194. 
Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that the abbreviated discussion 
of compensation in the final sentence of the ballot summary violates both prongs of 
the ballot summary analysis: first, it does not provide a fair notice of the contents 
of the amendment, and furthermore it is vague and misleading.  Specifically, 
Citizens argues that the summary does not provide fair notice of what constitutes 
- 12 ­
“compensation” or who would receive it, and also that it misleads the public 
regarding what, exactly, is compensable.  We disagree.   
The issue of compensation arises within the definition of the term “donated 
to medicine,” which is defined in both the summary and the amendment.  The 
summary provides that “[a]n embryo is ‘donated to medicine’ only if given without 
receipt of consideration other than cost reimbursement and compensation for 
recovery of donated cells.”  The text of the actual amendment further explains that 
an embryo is “donated to medicine” if it does not involve “financial inducement.” 
“Financial inducement” is then defined as excluding reasonable cost 
reimbursement for donations and reasonable compensation for the recovery of 
cells.  The amendment states that this can include compensation for the 
preparation, time, burden and risk of cells recovered through invasive procedures. 
The summary makes clear that donors will be reimbursed for costs and 
compensated for the recovery of the embryos under the proposed amendment. 
This Court has previously approved summaries that omit certain details that 
are otherwise included in the full amendment.  As explained in Carroll v. 
Firestone, 497 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986), “[i]t is not necessary to explain every 
ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose.”  See also Med. 
Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amendment, 880 So. 2d at 679 (“We also note that it is 
not necessary for the title and summary to explain every detail or ramification of 
- 13 ­
the proposed amendment.”) (citing Public Funding of Political Candidates’ 
Campaigns, 693 So. 2d at 975).  In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re 
Physician Shall Charge the Same Fee for the Same Health Care Service to Every 
Patient, 880 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2004), we emphasized in approving a ballot 
summary, “Given the seventy-five word limit contained in section 101.161(1), it 
would be impossible for sponsors to detail all possible effects or ramifications of 
the proposed amendment. . . .  The statute itself requires only that the voter be 
made aware of the chief purpose of the amendment.”  Id. at 664.  Accordingly, 
despite the fact that the summary does not detail how potential donors might be 
compensated and for what expenses they could be reimbursed, the summary 
nevertheless fairly informs the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment, the 
state funding of embryonic stem cell research. 
Regarding the second prong of the inquiry into the summary, opponents  
also claim that the explanation regarding compensation is ambiguous and 
misleading since voters are informed only that donors will be compensated, but not 
how much they will be compensated.  Opponents further argue that if the summary 
is attempting to address a concern that state funds should not encourage the 
donation of cells for money, it misleads voters by implying that the consideration 
given in exchange for the embryos will be more limited than the amendment 
actually provides.  However, as explained above, this Court has repeatedly upheld 
- 14 ­
 
summaries that do not detail every facet of an amendment’s proposal.  The 
language in the summary closely tracks that which is used in the amendment itself, 
and the summary also does not contain the type of political rhetoric this Court 
rejected in such summaries as Marriage Protection and Homestead Tax Exemption. 
Accordingly, we conclude the instant summary fulfills the basic purpose of 
section 101.161, Florida Statutes, in that it “provide[s] 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.––Fee on 
Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 1996). 
C. Financial Impact Statement 
This Court must also determine whether the financial impact statement 
complies with the requirements provided in the Florida Constitution and the 
statute.  Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, addresses financial impact 
statements and provides in relevant part: 
(c) 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 probable financial impact of any 
amendment proposed by the initiative pursuant to section 3. 
Section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2006), now addresses the financial impact 
statement as follows: 
(5)(a) Within 45 days after receipt of a proposed revision or 
amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the 
Secretary of State, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall 
- 15 ­
complete an analysis and financial impact statement to be placed on 
the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or 
costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed 
initiative.  The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall submit 
the financial impact statement to the Attorney General and Secretary 
of State. 
. . . . 
(b)3.  Principals of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference 
shall reach a consensus or majority concurrence on a clear and 
unambiguous financial impact statement, no more than 75 words in 
length, and immediately submit the statement to the Attorney General. 
Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Financial Impact Estimating 
Conference from setting forth a range of potential impacts in the 
financial impact statement. 
§ 100.371(5), Fla. Stat. (2006).  In deciding the validity of a financial impact 
statement, the Court has limited itself only to addressing whether the statement is 
clear, unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-five words, and is limited to 
addressing the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to the state 
or local governments.  See Advisory Op. re Protect People from Health Hazards of 
Using Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1194 (Fla. 2006).  In the cases where this Court 
found the financial impact statement to be defective, it was because the statement 
did not comply with these specific requirements.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Repeal of High Speed Rail Amendment, 880 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 2004) 
(rejecting the proposed financial impact statement because certain provisions were 
not expressed in terms of the “probable financial impact” and because the 
statement went beyond addressing “revenues or costs to state or local 
governments”); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Pub. Prot. from Repeated Med. 
- 16 ­
Malpractice, 880 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 2004) (rejecting the proposed financial 
impact statement because phrase “range of potential impacts” in section 
100.371(6)(b)(3) must relate to the phrase “probable financial impact” set forth in 
the constitution and the proposed statement included potential impacts beyond 
monetary estimates); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Authorizes Miami-Dade & 
Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, 880 
So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2004) (same).   
The financial impact statement for this proposed amendment provides as 
follows: “This amendment requires the state to spend $20 million a year for ten 
years.”  The instant financial impact statement is well within the 75-word limit and 
it clearly and unambiguously conveys that the amendment will cost the state $20 
million a year for ten years. We find no basis to reject the financial impact 
statement under section 100.371(6). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed ballot 
title and summary for the “Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research” meet the 
legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution and section 
101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2006).  Likewise, the accompanying financial impact 
statement is in accordance with section 100.371(5).  Accordingly, we approve the 
amendment and financial impact statement for placement on the ballot. 
- 17 ­
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
BELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
CANTERO, J., concurs. 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
BELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
I concur with the approval of the initiative petition.  However, I dissent as to 
this Court’s review and approval of the financial impact statement.  I do so because 
I conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to render advisory opinions concerning 
the validity of financial impact statements.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), art. 
XI, §§ 3, 5, Fla. Const.  In other words,  I believe that this Court’s jurisdiction to 
render an advisory opinion is limited to the initiative petition itself and does not 
encompass the separate financial impact statement. 
CANTERO, J., concurs. 
Two Cases: 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Louis F. Hubener, Chief Deputy Solicitor 
General, Lynn C. Hearn, and Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida,
 
for Petitioner 
Stephen H. Grimes of Holland and Knight, LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, and Henry 
B. Handler of Weiss, Handler, Angelos and Cornwell, P.A., Boca Raton, Florida, 
- 18 ­
for Floridians for Stem Cell Research and Cures, Inc., sponsor 
Major B. Harding and Stephen C. Emmanuel of Ausley and McMullen, 
Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of interested party Citizens for Science and Ethics, 
Inc.,  
 
as Opponents 
- 19 ­