Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004
CASE NO.:  SC04-1290
                                                             
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
RE: AUTHORIZES MIAMI-DADE AND
BROWARD COUNTY VOTERS TO
APPROVE SLOT MACHINES IN
PARIMUTUEL FACILITIES
The Attorney General has asked the Court for an advisory opinion as to
whether the revised financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Impact
Estimating Conference on the constitutional amendment, proposed by initiative
petition, entitled "Authorizes Miami-Dade & Broward County to Approve Slot
Machines in Parimutuel Facilities," is in accordance with section 100.371, Florida
Statutes.  The Court finds no basis for rejecting the revised financial impact
statement under section 100.371(6), Florida Statutes, as amended by chapter
2004-33, section 3, Laws of Florida.  The revised financial impact statement may
be placed on the ballot, but the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the
revised financial impact statement.
          No motion for rehearing will be allowed.
 
WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
A True Copy
Test:
2
jn
Served:
ALAN S. BECKER
STEPHEN H. GRIMES
HON. JEB  BUSH, GOVERNOR
ALAN B KOSLOW
RONALD LEE BOOK
SUSAN L. KELSEY
DANIEL K. ADKINS
HON. JAMES E. KING
HON. JOHNNIE  BYRD
HON. GLENDA  HOOD
JOHN M. HOGAN
FINANCIAL IMPACT  ESTIMATING CONFERENCE
HON. CHARLES J. CRIST, JR.
3
PARIENTE, C.J., dissenting.
For a financial impact statement to comply with the statutory and
constitutional requirement, it must be a clear and unambiguous  statement of the
estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local
governments resulting from the proposed initiative.  And while the Financial Impact
Estimating Conference may set forth “a range of potential impacts in the financial
statement,” it is critical that the statement be neutral and not contain politically
charged language that could be seen as favoring or opposing the initiative. 
This Court has apparently been charged by the Legislature with ensuring that
the financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Estimating Conference
complies with these requirements.  Because the constitutional amendment requiring
a financial impact statement was enacted in 2002, this year is the first time that this
Court has been called upon to conduct this review.  As a result of the time
parameters set forth in the statute, and the number of financial impact statements
submitted to us in a very short period of time, we have endeavored to strike a
balance between this Court’s limited ability to review the financial information
presented and our obligation to ensure that the voters are presented with a neutral,
clear and unambiguous statement.   The voters of this state passed the
1  The second sentence of the financial impact statement previously read:
However, if the voters in Miami-Dade County, Broward County, or
both counties authorize slot machines at parimutuel facilities,
expenditures by the state and local governments related to problem
4
constitutional amendment requiring the ballot to contain a financial impact statement
in order to understand and make informed decisions based on the financial
implications of the initiatives to be voted on.  To date, we have required scrupulous
compliance with this constitutional mandate.  
The particular constitutional initiative in this case deals with the controversial
subject of gambling.  The Court was initially presented with a financial impact
statement and rejected it because the use of the phrase "problem gambling" was not
a neutral phrase and amounted to editorializing.  We remanded the financial impact
statement for redrafting.  On remand, the Financial Estimating Conference
attempted to redraft the second sentence instead of simply excising the sentence, as
was done in the case of the constitutional initiative dealing with repeat medical
malpractice.  Had the Conference simply redrafted the sentence to eliminate the
editorializing, I would have had no problem with the revised statement.  Instead, the
second sentence of the resubmitted statement contains a whole new substantive
portion not contained in the initial statement in its addition of the phrase "local sales
tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million to $8 million annually."1
gambling may increase by an unknown amount.
The second sentence in the revised financial impact statement now reads:
If slot machines are authorized in Miami-Dade or Broward counties,
governmental costs associated with additional gambling will increase
by an unknown amount and local sales tax-related revenues will be
reduced by $5 million to $8 million annually.
5
The purpose of our limited remand was to redraft the financial impact
statement to address language that was problematic, not to inject new issues that
were not the subject of the initial remand.  Otherwise, the result would be a never-
ending spiral of "new" review in proceedings that should become increasingly
narrow in scope.  If the process started many months ahead of the statutory
deadline, perhaps that would be less of a problem.  But the ability to conduct a
meaningful and thoughtful review is adversely affected where time is very short, as
it is here (the statutory deadline specifies all review must be completed by 5:00 p.m.
75 days before the election, making this year's deadline August 19, 2004).  Adding
new issues on remand is not only unfair to the proponents but also increases the
pressures on this Court to start over again analyzing new assertions with each
redraft as the time available to do so becomes shorter.  That is not what the
statutory scheme contemplates, and it is not an efficient way to conduct judicial
review proceedings.  
6
Temporal and practical concerns aside, the new language added is both
confusing and incomplete and is seemingly unrelated to the first portion of the
second sentence.  The second part of the second sentence was not proposed as a
way to quantify the alleged increase in unspecified social costs associated with
gambling referenced in the first part of the sentence.  
As set forth clearly in the Conference's explanatory statement and working
papers, the two halves of the sentence deal with two separate issues.  The first half
deals with increased government costs from compulsive gambling.  The second
half deals with a separate issue, addressing not increased costs but decreased local
sales tax revenues.  Further from a review of the statement itself, it is unclear
whether the language "local sales tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million
to $8 million annually" is meant to be seen solely as a consequence of the approval
of slot machines in Miami-Dade or Broward counties, or is somehow also
connected to the costs associated with additional gambling.  Moreover, it is not
clear whose local sales tax revenues will be reduced by $5 million to $8 million. 
The sentence could be construed to mean that a number of localities will each
suffer a $5 to $8 million reduction in sales-tax revenues, that the reduction applies
only "locally" to Miami-Dade or Broward counties, or that "local government"
stands to lose $5 to $8 million statewide.  These are substantial differences. 
7
Although the final interpretation is supported by the more detailed financial
information statement prepared by the Conference pursuant to section
100.371(6)(d)(3), this meaning is not clearly and unambiguously conveyed by the
impact statement, as required by law.  The voters should not have to guess at the
financial impact statement's meaning.
The financial information statement reveals an additional problem with
the impact statement’s reference to a $5 to $8 million loss in local sales tax
revenues.  The more detailed information statement, which the voters will not
see, provides that “local governments in Miami-Dade and Broward counties
would likely experience offsetting increases in tax collections due to
increased local tourism.”  Therefore, any alleged decrease in local sales tax
revenues will be offset by increases in tax collections from tourism spending. 
 The revised financial impact statement creates the false impression that there
will only be reductions in sales tax revenues. 
As we begin our uncharted course of reviewing financial impact
statements, we ought to insist on statements that are precise, accurate, and
neutral.  The purpose of the amendment approved by the voters and now
contained in article XI, section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution was an
important one—to ensure that voters understand the financial implications of
8
the initiatives that they vote on (with the bullet train and the class size
amendments being notable recent examples).  The voters of this state, who
will be determining whether to approve or reject the ballot initiative, deserve
no less.  And the statutory provision enacted pursuant to the constitutional
mandate, section 100.371(6)(b), requires that the financial impact statement
be both "clear and unambiguous."  By our recent decisions remanding
financial impact statements to the Conference for redrafting, we have
indicated that strict compliance with this constitutional mandate is essential to
the validity of a financial impact statement. 
Strict compliance is especially important because the financial impact
statement will have the imprimatur of the government.  Financial impact
statements cannot and should not be used by the government to sway the
electorate by using language designed to achieve a desired result—that is, to
vote in favor or against the initiative.  
In this case, the additional language is beyond the scope of the
statutory remand.  It is also confusing and incomplete, and therefore
potentially misleading to voters.  I would thus remand the revised financial
impact statement to the Conference with directions to redraft pursuant to
section 100.371(6)(d)(1) or excise the second sentence.
9
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.