Title: In Re Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

636 So. 2d 1336 (1994)
In re ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  SAVE OUR EVERGLADES.
No. 83301.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 26, 1994.
*1337 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Louis F. Hubener, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Jon L. Mills and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Gainesville, for Save Our Everglades Committee.
W. Dexter Douglass and Gary L. Printy of Douglass, Powell & Rudolph, Tallahassee, for Florida Audubon Society, in support of petitioner.
Cecilia F. Renn, Vice President and General Counsel, and Julian Clarkson and Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for Associated Industries of Florida, opposing proposed amendment.
Howell L. Ferguson of Landers & Parsons, Tallahassee, Bruce S. Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl, Ft. Lauderdale, and William B. Killian of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for Flo-Sun, Inc., opposing proposed amendment.
Stanley James Brainerd and Kenneth R. Hart and R. Stan Peeler of MacFarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen, Tallahassee, for Florida Chamber of Commerce, opposing proposed amendment.
Terry Cole and Timothy P. Atkinson of Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida Fruit and Vegetable Ass'n, opposing proposed amendment.
Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, and Judith S. Kavanaugh of Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, P.A., for The Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., opposing proposed amendment.
Robert P. Smith of Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams, Tallahassee, for Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida, Inc., opposing proposed amendment.
Cass D. Vickers, Robert S. Goldman and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen, Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.A., Tallahassee, for U.S. Sugar Corp., opposing proposed amendment.
Arthur J. England, Jr., Barry S. Richard and Christopher L. Kurzner of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., Miami, for Florida Farmers for Fairness Committee, opposing proposed amendment.
SHAW, Justice.
The Attorney General has requested this Court to review a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. Art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. We find the proposed amendment defective and order it stricken from the ballot.
The Florida Attorney General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion on the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, by a group known as Save Our Everglades Committee. See Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const.; § 16.061, Fla. Stat. (1993). The petition seeks to amend the Florida Constitution by creating a trust to restore the Everglades funded by a fee on raw sugar. The full text of the petition reads as follows:
Our analysis of this proposed amendment is limited to two inquiries: whether the amendment addresses but a single subject, and whether the amendment's title and summary are sufficiently clear.
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, provides in relevant part:
This single-subject provision is a rule of restraint designed to insulate Florida's organic law from precipitous and cataclysmic change.
We described the context in which the single-subject rule operates in Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1984):
Id. at 988.
The single-subject limitation also guards against "logrolling," a practice wherein several separate issues are rolled into a single initiative in order to aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular issue. This Court described one such petition:
Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d 824, 831 (Fla. 1970) (quoting McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal. 2d 330, 196 P.2d 787, 796-97 (1948)).
This Court utilizes a "oneness of purpose" standard in applying the single-subject rule. Fine, 448 So. 2d  at 990 ("the *1340 one-subject limitation deal[s] with a logical and natural oneness of purpose"). This standard in turn incorporates a functional test:
Fine, 448 So. 2d  at 990. Although a proposal may affect several branches of government and still pass muster,[1] no single proposal can substantially alter or perform the functions of multiple branches:
Evans v. Firestone, 457 So. 2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1984).
We conclude that the present initiative performs the functions of multiple branches of government. Section (b) of the initiative establishes a trust for restoration of the Everglades and provides for funding and operation of the trust. This provision implements a public policy decision of statewide significance and thus performs an essentially legislative function. The initiative also imposes a levy  whether characterized as a fee or a tax  on raw sugar, and gives the trustees complete autonomy in deciding how revenues are to be spent. Because of the imprecise description of the Everglades Ecosystem, the trustees would be required to set the boundaries within which the fee can be levied, and are authorized to redefine these boundaries. The exercise of these traditionally legislative functions is not even subject to the constitutional check of executive branch veto.
The initiative also contemplates the exercise of vast executive powers. The trustees are authorized to "administer" the trust, expending funds to restore water quantity and quality to levels that existed at some earlier, unspecified, "historical" date. They are entrusted with the power to expend trust funds in "pollution cleanup and control" efforts, and thus would be required to identify offending pollutants and sources of pollution and take corrective measures. By virtue of their "management, construction, and operation of water storage and sewer systems," they would be building and operating stormwater treatment areas, canals, pumping stations, and other facilities with state funds. Because various other executive agencies have jurisdiction in this area, the constitutionally conferred powers of the trustees would impinge on the powers of existing agencies. Furthermore, the initiative authorizes the trustees to expend trust funds in acquiring lands and gives them rulemaking authority.
Finally, the initiative performs a judicial function. Section (a) finds that the sugar cane industry polluted the Everglades and imposes a flat fee on that industry to cover cleanup costs. This provision renders a judgment of wrongdoing and de facto liability and thus performs a quintessential judicial function. It is as though the drafters drew up their plan to restore the Everglades, then stepped outside their role as planners, donned judicial robes, and made factual findings and determinations of liability and damages.
Thus, the initiative performs functions of each branch of government. Viewed in its entirety, the initiative creates a virtual fourth branch of government with authority to exercise the powers of the other three on the subject of remedying Everglades pollution. The initiative falls far short of meeting the *1341 single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.[2]
We note that the initiative embodies precisely the sort of logrolling that the single-subject rule was designed to foreclose. There is no "oneness of purpose," but rather a duality of purposes. One objective  to restore the Everglades  is politically fashionable, while the other  to compel the sugar industry to fund the restoration  is more problematic. Many voters sympathetic to restoring the Everglades might be antithetical to forcing the sugar industry to pay for the cleanup by itself, and yet those voters would be compelled to choose all or nothing. The danger is that our organic law might be amended to compel the sugar industry to pay for the cleanup singlehandedly even though a majority of voters do not think this wise or fair.
Section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1993), lists the requirements for the ballot title and summary of a proposed constitutional amendment:
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).
"[S]ection 101.161 requires that the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure." Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 154-55 (Fla. 1982). This is so that the voter will have notice of the issue contained in the amendment, will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot. Id. at 155. However, "[i]t is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose." Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986).
The title of the present initiative  "SAVE OUR EVERGLADES"  is misleading. It implies that the Everglades is lost, or in danger of being lost, to the citizens of our State, and needs to be "saved" via the proposed amendment. Yet, nothing in the text of the proposed amendment hints at this peril. Section (a) avers only that the Everglades was polluted at some point in the past by the sugarcane industry. The severity of pollution is unmentioned  it could be extensive, or relatively minor. Further, the text of the amendment clearly states that the purpose of the amendment is to "restore" the Everglades to its original condition, not to "save" it from peril. A voter responding to the emotional language of the title could well be misled as to the contents and purpose of the proposed amendment. "A proposed amendment cannot fly under false colors; this one does." Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d  at 156.
The summary too is misleading. It provides that the sugarcane industry, "which polluted the Everglades," is "to help to pay to clean up pollution." By using the phrase "to help to pay," the summary gives the reader the impression that entities other than the sugarcane industry will be sharing the expense of cleanup. Yet, nothing in the text of the proposed amendment indicates that this would be the case. The text implies just the opposite  it calls for the levying of a fee on the first processors of sugarcane exclusively. A voter perusing the summary could well be misled on this material point.
*1342 Finally, the summary more closely resembles political rhetoric than it does an accurate and informative synopsis of the meaning and effect of the proposed amendment. As this Court stated in Evans:
Evans, 457 So. 2d  at 1355.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the title, summary, and text of the proposed amendment violate the legal requirements of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1993), and must be stricken from the ballot.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.
[1]  See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General  Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1991) ("We have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even though they affected multiple branches of government.").
[2]  The proponents' argument that the present proposal is no more violative of the single-subject rule than was the amendment creating the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC) is without merit. See art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The amendment creating the GFWFC was proposed by joint resolution of the legislature and thus was not subject to the single-subject rule. Compare art. XI, § 1, Fla. Const. (no single-subject requirement) with art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. (single-subject requirement). See generally Fine, 448 So. 2d  at 988.