Case Title: Dawn K. Roberts v. Brian K. Doyle

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC10-1508

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC10-1508 
____________ 
 
DAWN K. ROBERTS, etc.,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
BRIAN K. DOYLE, et al.,  
Appellees. 
 
[August 31, 2010] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Secretary of State Dawn K. Roberts appealed a judgment of the Second 
Circuit Court to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified to this Court that 
the judgment is of great public importance and requires immediate resolution by 
this Court.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const.  Because we 
agree with the trial court‘s determination that the ballot title and summary for 
Amendment 3 are clearly and conclusively defective, we affirm. 
 
On July 23, 2010, the trial court ordered that Amendment 3 be removed 
from the November 2010 general election ballot, finding that ―the ballot title and 
summary . . . fail to fairly inform the voter, in clear and unambiguous language, of 
 
- 2 - 
the chief purpose of the amendment.‖  Specifically, the court found the ballot title 
and summary for Amendment 3 ―misleading in two material respects, both 
involving the additional homestead exemption, a chief aspect of the amendment.‖  
 
First, the court found that ―[n]either the title nor the summary provide notice 
that the additional exemption is only available for properties purchased on or after 
January 1, 2010.‖   Second, the court found that the language ―new homestead 
owners‖ in the title, coupled with ―first-time homestead‖ in the summary, convey 
the message that to be eligible for the additional homestead exemption, the owner 
must have never before declared the property homestead.  The court further found 
it misleading that the summary limits the exemption to persons not having owned a 
―principal residence‖ during the preceding eight years because Florida law does 
not define ―principal residence‖ as the equivalent of ―homestead‖ for tax purposes.   
 
For the reasons expressed in detail below, we agree with the court that the 
ballot title and summary are confusing to the average voter.  The lack of an 
effective date renders it impossible for a voter to know which homeowners would 
qualify for the exemption.  Further, the ballot title and summary fail to mention 
that a married person could fail to qualify for the exemption because his or her 
spouse previously owned a residence.  Finally, we agree that ―[a] voter reading the 
title and summary could easily conclude that in order to be eligible for the 
additional homestead, a property owner would have to meet two conditions: have 
 
- 3 - 
not owned a principal residence during the preceding eight years and have never 
previously declared the property homestead.‖ 
General Principles Regarding Proposed Constitutional Amendments 
The Florida Constitution gives the Legislature authority to propose 
amendments for submission to the electorate.  See art. XI, § 1, Fla. Const.  Article 
XI, section 1, provides that the Legislature may propose an amendment to the 
Florida Constitution by a ―joint resolution agreed to by three-fifths of the 
membership of each house of the legislature.‖  Then the proposed constitutional 
amendment must be ―submitted to the electors at the next general election.‖  Art. 
XI, § 5(a), Fla. Const.  ―Implicit in this provision is the requirement that the 
proposed amendment be accurately represented on the ballot; otherwise, voter 
approval would be a nullity.‖  Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 12 (Fla. 2000).  
The accuracy requirement in article XI, section 5, functions as a kind of ―truth in 
packaging‖ law for the ballot.  Id. at 13.  The accuracy requirement applies to all 
proposed constitutional amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature.  
Id. at 16.   
The Court has recognized that ―[a]lthough the constitution does not 
expressly authorize judicial review of amendments proposed by the Legislature, 
this Court long ago explained that the courts are the proper forum in which to 
 
- 4 - 
litigate the validity of such amendments.‖  Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 13-14.  
Specifically, the Court has stated: 
Under our system of constitutional government regulated by 
law, a determination of whether an amendment to the Constitution has 
been validly proposed and agreed to by the Legislature depends upon 
the fact of substantial compliance or noncompliance with the 
mandatory provisions of the existing Constitution as to how such 
amendments shall be proposed and agreed to, and such determination 
is necessarily required to be in a judicial forum where the Constitution 
provides no other means of authoritatively determining such 
questions. 
Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 14 (quoting Crawford v. Gilchrist, 59 So. 963, 966 
(Fla. 1912)). 
Although this Court traditionally has accorded a measure of deference 
to constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature, that deference ―is 
not boundless, for the constitution imposes strict minimum requirements that 
apply across-the-board to all constitutional amendments, including those 
arising in the Legislature.‖  Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 14.  
The accuracy requirement in article XI, section 5, imposes a strict 
minimum standard for ballot clarity.  This requirement plays no 
favorites—it applies across-the-board to all constitutional 
amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature.  The 
purpose of this requirement is above reproach—it is to ensure that 
each voter will cast a ballot based on the full truth.  To function 
effectively—and to remain viable—a constitutional democracy must 
require no less. 
Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 21. 
 
- 5 - 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2009), is a ―codification of the 
accuracy requirement implicit in article XI, section 5 of the Florida 
Constitution.‖  Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Referenda Required for 
Adoption & Amendment Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 902 
So. 2d 763, 770 (Fla. 2005).   
 
Section 101.161(1) provides: 
 
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 after the list of candidates, 
followed by the word ―yes‖ and also by the word ―no,‖ and shall be 
styled in such a manner that a ―yes‖ vote will indicate approval of the 
proposal and a ―no‖ vote will indicate rejection. The wording of the 
substance of the amendment or other public measure and the ballot 
title to appear on the ballot shall be embodied in the joint resolution, 
constitutional revision commission proposal, constitutional 
convention proposal, taxation and budget reform commission 
proposal, or enabling resolution or ordinance. Except for amendments 
and ballot language proposed by joint resolution, the substance of the 
amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, 
not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. 
In addition, for every amendment proposed by initiative, the ballot 
shall include, following the ballot summary, a separate financial 
impact statement concerning the measure prepared by the Financial 
Impact Estimating Conference in accordance with s. 100.371(5). 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. (2009).  Thus, section 101.161(1) provides that the 
substance of a proposed constitutional amendment must be printed on the 
ballot in ―clear and unambiguous language.‖  This Court has explained ―that 
 
- 6 - 
the ballot [must] be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him 
intelligently to cast his ballot.‖  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 155 
(Fla. 1982) (quoting Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 1954)).  
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.  Carroll v. Firestone, 497 
So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986).  The ballot must, however, give the voter fair 
notice of the decision he or she must make.  Askew, 421 So. 2d at 155.  The 
purpose of section 101.161 is to ensure that voters are advised of the 
amendment‘s true meaning.  Advisory Op. to Att‘y Gen. re Indep. 
Nonpartisan Comm‘n to Apportion Legislative & Cong. Dists. which 
Replaces Apportionment by Legislature, 926 So. 2d 1218, 1228 (Fla. 2006). 
 
This Court has stressed that a proposed amendment ―must stand on its own 
merits and not be disguised as something else.‖  Askew, 421 So. 2d at 156.  ―A 
ballot title and summary cannot either ‗fly under false colors‘ or ‗hide the ball‘ as 
to the amendment‘s true effect.‖  Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 16. 
 
A court may declare a proposed constitutional amendment invalid only if the 
record shows that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective; the standard 
of review in such cases is de novo.  Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 11.  In assessing the 
ballot title and summary for compliance with section 101.161(1), the reviewing 
 
- 7 - 
court should ask two questions, first, whether the ballot title and summary ―fairly 
inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment,‖ and second, ―whether the 
language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public.‖  Florida Dep‘t 
of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142, 147 (Fla. 2008).  However, the Court does not 
consider the substantive merit of the proposed amendment.  Id. 
 
The title and summary must also be accurate and informative.  See Advisory 
Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 803 (Fla. 
1998).  These requirements make certain that the ―electorate is advised of the true 
meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment.‖  Advisory Opinion to the Attorney 
Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Askew, 421 So. 
2d at 156).  A proposed amendment must be removed from the ballot when the title 
and summary do not accurately describe the scope of the text of the amendment, 
because it has failed in its purpose.  See Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d at 804.     
Finally, this Court has held that the ballot title and summary must be read 
together in determining whether the ballot information properly informs the voters.  
See Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten 
Educ., 824 So. 2d 161, 166 (Fla. 2002).  This Court will presume that the average 
voter has a certain amount of common understanding and knowledge.  See 
Advisory Op. to Att‘y Gen. re Protect People from the Health Hazards of Second-
Hand Smoke, 814 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2002). 
 
- 8 - 
Whether the Ballot Title and Summary for Amendment 3 Complies With the 
Requirements of Section 101.161(1) 
Here, we find that the ballot title and summary for Amendment 3 are neither 
accurate nor informative.  If adopted, Amendment 3 would, in relevant part, 
provide a temporary additional homestead exemption for a single property for a 
period not to exceed five years in an amount equal to twenty-five percent of the 
just value of the property during the first year and reduced by at least twenty 
percent each subsequent year beginning January 1, 2011, for persons who purchase 
a qualifying property on or after January 1, 2010, who have not owned a ―principal 
residence‖ for the preceding eight years and, if married, whose spouses have not 
owned a ―principal residence‖ for the preceding eight years.  However, if a voter 
read the ballot title and summary alone, it would appear that Amendment 3, if 
adopted, would, in relevant part, provide a temporary additional homestead 
exemption for a period not to exceed five years in an amount equal to twenty-five 
percent of the just value of a ―first-time homestead‖ during the first year and 
reduced by at least twenty percent each subsequent year for persons who have not 
owned a ―principal residence‖ for the preceding eight years.  Because of the 
omissions in the ballot title and summary, a voter would not be clearly informed 
who qualifies for the proposed exemption; that a person‘s spouse could exempt 
him or her from qualifying for the additional homestead exemption; that the 
 
- 9 - 
measure would be effective beginning January 1, 2011, for homes purchased on or 
after January 1, 2010; and that the additional exemption is available for only a 
single property.   
 
The measure is on the November 2010 general election ballot.  Homestead 
exemptions are available on January 1 of any tax year for eligible homes purchased 
on or after January 1 of the preceding year.  See art. VII, § 4(d), Fla. Const.; 
Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2004).  However, because the effective 
date of the measure is excluded from the ballot title and summary, the omission is 
misleading.  Voters have no reasonable way to ascertain which ―new homestead 
owners‖ qualify for the proposed exemption unlike in each of the previous 
amendments relating to homestead exemptions, where the effective date was 
published on the ballot.  See, e.g., H. J. Res. 353, Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2006) (Art. XII, 
§ 26, Fla. Const.); S. J. Res. 2D, Spec. Sess. ―D‖ (Fla. 2007) (Art. XII, § 27, Fla. 
Const.).   
 
Secondly, the circuit court stated that it is misleading for the ballot title and 
summary to use both ―principal residence‖ and ―first-time homestead.‖  In context, 
―first-time homestead‖ is used in the following sentence: ―Under the exemption, 25 
percent of the just value of a first-time homestead, up to $100,000, will be exempt 
from property taxes.‖  In other words, the term is used only to define the value of 
the exemption.  However, when both the title and summary are read in context, 
 
- 10 - 
―new homestead owners‖ could mean ―persons who have not owned a principal 
residence during the preceding 8 years,‖ and those who have never previously 
claimed a homestead exemption.  This language is ambiguous.  As in Advisory 
Opinion to the Attorney General re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care 
Providers, 705 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1998), the discrepancy in the language is 
misleading.   Id. at 566 (finding material and misleading a ballot summary that 
asserted that ―citizens‖ would have the right to choose, while the amendment itself 
referred to ―every natural person‖).  
 
Additionally, there is a material omission from the ballot title and summary 
that is misleading to the voter that was not raised by the parties.  Because we 
review the proposed amendment de novo, we may also consider whether any 
portion of the title and summary are misleading.  Notably, the ballot title and 
summary fail to note that the additional exemption is not available to a person 
whose spouse has owned a principal residence in the preceding eight years.  This 
omission clouds the eligibility requirements for the additional homestead 
exemption in a material way.  Because this exclusion is omitted from the ballot 
title and summary, voters may be misled into believing they qualify for the 
additional exemption when they do not, or conversely believe they do not qualify 
when they do.   
 
- 11 - 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Second Circuit 
enjoining Secretary Roberts from placing Amendment 3 on the November 2010 
general election ballot. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANADY, C.J., concurs. 
 
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. 
 
POLSTON, J., dissenting. 
 
The ballot title and summary give the voters fair notice of the proposed 
amendment to article VII, Finance and Taxation, which is a relatively complex 
subject matter in our Florida Constitution.  Although the title and summary do not 
explain every detail within the proposed amendment, I do not consider the 
differences sufficiently material to keep the people of Florida from voting on the 
proposed amendment.  There is no ―hiding the ball‖ or ―flying under false colors.‖  
Accordingly, I dissent. 
 
The title and summary state: 
PROPERTY TAX LIMIT FOR NONHOMESTEAD PROPERTY; 
ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR NEW 
HOMESTEAD OWNERS.—The State Constitution generally limits 
the maximum annual increase in the assessed value of nonhomestead 
property to 10 percent annually.  This proposed amendment reduces 
the maximum annual increase in the assessed values of those 
properties to 5 percent annually. 
 
- 12 - 
 
This amendment also requires the Legislature to provide an 
additional homestead exemption for persons who have not owned a 
principal residence during the preceding 8 years.  Under the 
exemption, 25 percent of the just value of a first-time homestead, up 
to $100,000, will be exempt from property taxes.  The amount of the 
additional exemption will decrease in each succeeding year for 5 years 
by the greater of 20 percent of the initial additional exemption or the 
difference between the just value and the assessed value of the 
property.  The additional exemption will not be available in the 6th 
and subsequent years. 
 
The most reasonable reading of the additional homestead exemption 
provision is that it will apply to new owners who purchase after the effective date 
of the amendment.  Although the amendment adds those purchasing on or after 
January 1, 2010, I do not believe this is a material difference.  Further, when both 
the title and summary are read in context, ―new homestead owners‖ could only 
mean ―persons who have not owned a principal residence during the preceding 8 
years.‖  And because I believe that not referencing spouses in the summary is 
relatively minor, I believe fair notice has been provided to the voting public.  See 
Advisory Op. to the Att‘y Gen. re Protect People from the Health Hazards of 
Second-Hand Smoke by Prohibiting Workplace Smoking, 814 So. 2d 415, 419 
(Fla. 2002) (explaining that the word limit placed on summaries does not lend 
itself to explaining all of a proposed amendment‘s details and concluding that ―an 
exhaustive explanation of the interpretation and future possible effects of the 
amendment [is] not required‖) (quoting Advisory Op. to the Att‘y Gen. re  
 
- 13 - 
Amendment to Bar Gov‘t from Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. 
Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 899 (Fla. 2000)).   
Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
CANADY, C.J., concurs. 
 
 
Certified Judgments of Trial Courts in and for Leon County – John C. Cooper, 
Judge, Case No. 2010-CA-002114 – An Appeal from the District Court of Appeal, 
First District, Case No. 1D10-3935 
 
Ronald A. Lathan, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General, Russell S. Kent, Special Counsel 
for Litigation, and Ashley E. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, C.B. Upton, 
General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellants 
 
Barry Scott Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida 
 
 
for Appellees 
 
Victoria L. Weber and David L. Powell of Hopping, Green and Sams, Tallahassee, 
Florida, on behalf of the Florida Realtors, 
 
 
as Amicus Curiae