Case Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Limiting Cruel and Inhuman Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC01-1367

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC01-1367
____________
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 RE:  LIMITING CRUEL AND INHUMANE CONFINEMENT OF PIGS
DURING PREGNANCY.
[January 17, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to section 15.21, Florida Statutes (2001), the Secretary of State
submitted to the Attorney General an initiative petition which sought to  amend the
Florida Constitution to limit the cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during
pregnancy.   In turn, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an advisory
opinion relative to the validity of this initiative petition (hereinafter “proposed
amendment”) according to article IV, section 10 of the Florida Constitution, and
section 16.061, Florida Statutes (2001).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10;
1.  No briefs were filed in opposition to the proposed amendment.
-2-
art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.  In response, this Court issued an order permitting
interested parties to file briefs on the proposed amendment.1  
The following are the ballot title and summary of the proposed amendment:
Ballot title:  Animal Cruelty Amendment:  Limiting Cruel and Inhumane
          
Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy.  
Ballot summary:    Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens; 
to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The 
Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a 
pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or 
tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented 
from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and 
during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, 
and an effective date.
 
The text of the proposed amendment, which would add section 20 to
article X of the Florida Constitution, provided as follows:
Section 20.  Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During
Pregnancy.
Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens.  To
prevent cruelty to certain animals and as recommended by The
Humane Society of the United States, the people of the State of
Florida hereby limit the cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during
pregnancy as provided herein.
  
(a)  It shall be unlawful for any person to confine a pig during
pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a
farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.
-3-
(b)  This section shall not apply:
(1)  when a pig is undergoing an examination, test, treatment or
operation carried out for veterinary purposes, provided that the
period during which the animal is confined or tethered is not
longer than reasonably necessary.
(2)  during the prebirthing period.
(c)  For purposes of this section:
(1)  “enclosure” means any cage, crate or other enclosure in
which a pig is kept for all or the majority of any day, including
what is commonly described as the “gestation crate.”
(2)  “farm” means the land, buildings, support facilities, and
other appurtenances used in the production of animals for food
or fiber.
(3)  “person” means any natural person, corporation and/or 
business entity.
(4)  “pig” means any animal of the porcine species.
(5)  “turning around freely” means turning around without
having to touch any side of the pig’s enclosure.
(6)  “prebirthing period” means the seven-day period prior to a
pig’s expected date of giving birth.
(d)  A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), as amended, or by a fine of not
more than $5000, or by both imprisonment and a fine, unless and until
the legislature enacts more stringent penalties for violations hereof.  On
and after the effective date of this section, law enforcement officers in
the state are authorized to enforce the provisions of this section in the
-4-
same manner and authority as if a violation of this section constituted a
violation of Section 828.13, Florida Statutes (1999).  The confinement
or tethering of each pig shall constitute a separate offense.  The
knowledge or acts of agents and employees of a person in regard to a
pig owned, farmed, or in the custody of a person, shall be held to be
the knowledge or act of such person. 
 
(e)  It is the intent of this section that implementing legislation is not
required for enforcing any violations hereof.
(f)  If any portion of this section is held invalid for any reason, the
remaining portion of this section, to the fullest extent possible, shall be
severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and
application.
(g)  The section shall take effect six years after approval by the
electors.
The first issue we address is whether the proposed amendment meets
the single-subject requirement.  Article XI, section 3 of the Florida
Constitution provides in pertinent part that proposed amendments based on
citizen initiative petitions  "shall embrace but one subject and matter directly
connected therewith."   The single-subject requirement applies to the citizen
initiative method of amending the constitution because
section 3 [citizen initiative] does not afford the same opportunity for
public hearing and debate that accompanies the proposal and drafting
processes of  sections 1, 2, and 4.  Accordingly,  section 3 protects
against multiple "precipitous" and "cataclysmic" changes in the
constitution by limiting to a single subject what may be included in any
one amendment proposal.
-5-
Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705
So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1998).
A proposed amendment must manifest a “logical and natural oneness of
purpose” in order to satisfy the single-subject requirement.  Fine v. Firestone, 448
So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984).  This determination requires this Court to consider
whether the proposed amendment affects separate functions of government, as well
as how it affects other provisions of the constitution.  See In re Advisory Opinion
to the Atty. Gen.--Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020
(Fla. 1994).  However, “the possibility that an amendment might interact with other
parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed
amendment.”  Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. -- Fee on the Everglades Sugar
Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1128 (Fla. 1996) (quoting Advisory Opinion to the Atty.
Gen. re Limited Casinos, 644 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1994)).  Likewise, "[a] proposal
that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail."  Fish &
Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So. 2d at 1353-54.   Rather, "it is when a
proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches that it
violates the single-subject test."   Id. at 1354.  
The only subject embraced in
the proposed amendment is a prohibition against the inhumane confinement of
pregnant pigs.  Its provisions, which indicate the definitions, exemptions, penalties,
-6-
and an effective date, are logically related to the subject of the proposed
amendment.  See Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. -- Limited Marine Net
Fishing, 620 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1993).  Thus, we find that the proposed amendment
is functionally and facially unified and therefore complies with the single-subject
requirement.
Section 101.16(1), Florida Statutes (2001), governs the requirements for
ballot titles and summaries and provides, in relevant part:
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is
submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment
. . . shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the
ballot . . . .   [T]he 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 caption, not
exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly
referred to or spoken of.  
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.  (2001).  Thus, the statute requires that the ballot title and
summary  “state in ‘clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the
measure.’”   Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. -- Limited Political Terms in
Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d  225, 228 (Fla. 1991) (quoting Askew v.
Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 155 (Fla. 1982));  accord Advisory Opinion to the Atty.
Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566
(Fla. 1998).   The title and summary must also be accurate and informative.  See
-7-
Advisory Opinion to the Atty. 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 Atty.
Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Askew, 421
So. 2d at 156).   This Court concluded that the purpose of the statute was "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." 
Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d at 803.   Nevertheless, “the title and summary need
not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment.”   Advisory
Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates'
Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1997).
In this proposed amendment, the ballot title does not exceed fifteen words
and the ballot summary does not exceed seventy-five words in length in accordance
with section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001).  Because the substance of the
proposed amendment complies with the abovementioned standards, we find that
the ballot title and summary provide the citizens of Florida with sufficient
information to make an informed decision at the ballot box.
Accordingly, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed ballot title and
summary meet the legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida
-8-
Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001).  No other issue is
encompassed in this opinion, and it should not be construed as favoring or
opposing the passage of the proposed amendment.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ.,
concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD and LEWIS, JJ.,
concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize that this
Court's approval of the proposed constitutional amendment for placement on the
ballot is limited to whether the amendment meets the single subject and ballot
summary requirements.  In other words, the merits or wisdom of the proposal is
irrelevant to whether the proposed amendment may be placed on the ballot.  Thus,
our approval of the amendment should not be construed as an expression on the
merits or wisdom of the proposed constitutional amendment or whether the subject
matter of the proposed amendment is one more appropriately addressed by the
Legislature for inclusion in the statutory law of this State.  See Advisory Opinion to
the Attorney Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail,
Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So. 2d 367, 368-69 (Fla. 2000).
-9-
However, I cannot help but observe that the issue of whether pregnant pigs
should be singled out for special protection is simply not a subject appropriate for
inclusion in our State constitution; rather it is a subject more properly reserved for
legislative enactment.  I thus find that former Justice McDonald's observations
made when this Court reviewed the net fishing amendment continue to ring true
today:
The merit of the proposed amendment is to be decided by the voters
of Florida and this Court's opinion regarding the wisdom of any
proposed amendment is irrelevant to its legal validity.  I am concerned,
however, that the net fishing amendment is more appropriate for
inclusion in Florida's statute books than in the state constitution.
The legal principles in the state constitution inherently command
a higher status than any other legal rules in our society.  By
transcending time and political mores, the constitution is a document
that provides stability in the law and society's consensus on general,
fundamental values.  Statutory law, on the other hand, provides a set
of legal rules that are specific, easily amended, and adaptable to the
political, economic, and social changes of our society.
The power to change both the constitution and statutory law is,
theoretically, vested in the people.  The power to amend the
constitution is implicit in the declaration in article I, section 1, Florida
Constitution, that [a]ll political power is inherent in the people."  The
1968 revision of the state constitution adopted the Revision
Commission's recommendation to include a section explicitly dealing
with the initiative process.  According to article XI, section 3, "[t]he
power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or
portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people 
. . . ."  Recognizing the sovereignty of the people, I still feel compelled
to express my view that the permanency and supremacy of state
constitutional jurisprudence is jeopardized by the recent proliferation
of constitutional amendments.
-10-
Undoubtedly, some of Florida's most crucial legal principles
have evolved as a result of the initiative process.  However, the
legislative power of the state is vested in the Legislature, art. III, § 1,
and on matters that are statutory in nature, a concerted effort should
be made to have the Legislature address the subject.  The technical
requirements, such as the single-subject rule and the requirements of
section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1991), appear insufficient to
prevent abuse of the amendment process.  At this juncture, rather than
espouse any particular solution as to how to prevent such abuse, I
merely express my thought that some issues are better suited as
legislatively enacted statutes than as constitutional amendments.  It is
my hope that the next Revision Commission will have the opportunity
to establish some criteria regarding the subject matter of initiatives that
will preserve the constitution as a document of fundamental laws,
while still preserving the popular power of the people.
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen.--Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d
997, 999-1000 (Fla. 1993) (McDonald, J., concurring) (footnote and citation
omitted) (emphasis supplied).  Unfortunately, as of this date, no changes to the
citizen's initiative process have been made, and thus the number of initiatives
continues to proliferate without restriction as to their subject matter.  Unless
changes are made to the citizen's initiative process, this Court has no choice but to
restrict its review solely to whether the proposed constitutional amendment
comports with the single subject and ballot summary requirements.
ANSTEAD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding - Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General
-11-
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Louis F. Hubener III, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Stephen H. Grimes and Susan L. Kelsey of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Floridians for Humane Farms