Title: County of Volusia v. Detzner

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-1339 
____________ 
 
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, etc., et al., 
Appellants, 
 
vs. 
 
KENNETH J. DETZNER, etc., et al., 
Appellees. 
 
September 7, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
 
 
Volusia, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties seek review of a circuit court 
order validating the ballot title and summary of a proposed amendment to the 
Florida Constitution (“Amendment 10”).  The First District Court of Appeal 
certified the order as presenting a question of great public importance requiring 
this Court’s immediate resolution.  We have jurisdiction under article V, section 
3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.   
Background 
On May 9, 2018, the 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) 
submitted its proposed revisions and accompanying ballot summaries to the 
 
 
- 2 - 
Secretary of State.  Among them was Revision 5, retitled Amendment 10 for the 
November 2018 ballot.  The ballot title and summary for Amendment 10 state: 
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION 
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 
ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 4, 11 
ARTICLE VIII, SECTIONS 1, 6 
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND 
OPERATION. — 
Requires legislature to retain department of veterans’ affairs.  Ensures 
election of sheriffs, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, tax 
collectors, and clerks of court in all counties; removes county 
charters’ ability to abolish, change term, transfer duties, or eliminate 
election of these offices.  Changes annual legislative session 
commencement date in even-numbered years from March to January; 
removes legislature’s authorization to fix another date.  Creates office 
of domestic security and counterterrorism within department of law 
enforcement.    
At issue in this case is the portion of the summary stating that Amendment 
10 requires the election of the five named officers (“constitutional officers”) in all 
counties, and eliminates county charters’ ability to abolish, transfer duties, or 
 
 
- 3 - 
change the terms of those constitutional offices.  The relevant portion of 
Amendment 10 would amend1 article VIII, section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution 
as follows: 
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the 
electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax 
collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of 
the circuit court; except, when provided by county charter or special 
law approved by vote of the electors of the county, any county officer 
may be chosen in another manner therein specified, or any county 
office may be abolished when all the duties of the office prescribed by 
general law are transferred to another office.  Unless When not 
otherwise provided by county charter or special law approved by vote 
of the electors or pursuant to Article V, section 16, the clerk of the 
circuit court shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county 
commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds.  
Notwithstanding subsection 6(e) of this article, a county charter may 
not abolish the office of a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, 
a supervisor of elections, or a clerk of the circuit court; transfer the 
                                          
 
 
1.  Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.  
 
 
- 4 - 
duties of those officers to another officer or office; change the length 
of the four-year term of office; or establish any manner of selection 
other than by election by the electors of the county. 
Amendment 10 would also add the following section to article VIII of the 
Florida Constitution: 
SECTION 6. Schedule to Article VIII.— 
. . . .  
(g) SELECTION AND DUTIES OF COUNTY OFFICERS.— 
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, the amendment to 
Section 1 of this article, relating to the selection and duties of county 
officers, shall take effect January 5, 2021, but shall govern with 
respect to the qualifying for and the holding of the primary and 
general elections for county constitutional officers in 2020. 
(2) For Miami-Dade County and Broward County, the 
amendment to Section 1 of this article, relating to the selection and 
duties of county officers, shall take effect January 7, 2025, but shall 
govern with respect to the qualifying for and the holding of the 
primary and general elections for county constitutional officers in 
2024. 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
In June 2018, Volusia County (along with Philip T. Fleuchaus and T. Wayne 
Bailey, Volusia County voters) and Broward County independently sued the 
Florida Department of State and Secretary of State Kenneth Detzner, seeking 
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Both argued that the ballot title and summary of 
Amendment 10 mislead voters by failing to sufficiently describe Amendment 10’s 
chief purpose.  The circuit court consolidated the lawsuits and permitted Miami-
Dade County to intervene as a plaintiff.  The court further granted leave for the 
Florida Association of Court Clerks, Florida Tax Collectors Association, and Anne 
M. Gannon in her capacity as Palm Beach County Tax Collector to intervene as 
defendants.   
All parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The circuit court 
granted final summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that the ballot 
language would enable the average voter to understand the primary effect of 
Amendment 10.  Therefore, the court held, Amendment 10 should be included on 
the November 2018 ballot. 
Standard of Review 
 
 
 
We review the validity of a proposed constitutional amendment de novo.  
Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla. 2000).  In conducting this review, our 
sole task is to determine whether the ballot language sets forth the substance of the 
amendment in a manner consistent with section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2018).   
 
 
- 6 - 
Section 101.161(1) requires that a constitutional amendment “submitted to 
the vote of the people” include a title “not exceeding 15 words in length, by which 
the measure is commonly referred to,” and a ballot summary that explains “the 
chief purpose of the measure” in no more than seventy-five words.  In assessing 
conformity with these requirements, we consider 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.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 184 (Fla. 
2009) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for 
Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So. 
2d 210, 213-14 (Fla. 2007)).  We exercise “extreme care, caution, and restraint” 
before striking a proposed amendment from the ballot, holding a proposal invalid 
only if the record proves the amendment to be “clearly and conclusively 
defective.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 1982); Armstrong, 773 
So. 2d at 11. 
Analysis 
I.  Chief Purpose 
Appellants first argue that the ballot title and summary are defective for 
failing to inform voters of what the Appellants assert is Amendment 10’s true chief 
 
 
- 7 - 
purpose: to divest county voters of their current constitutional right to decide the 
structure of their local governments.  Since the summary makes no mention of this 
loss of rights, Appellants argue, the ballot language is misleading.   
We disagree.  The summary accurately states the effect that Amendment 10’s 
passage would have on county charters and special laws; there is no need to 
explain ramifications that are implicit in those statements.  The summary tells 
voters that the amendment would “ensure” election of constitutional officers in all 
counties, and provides that county charters may not allow for their selection by an 
alternative method.  It is therefore unnecessary to explain the obvious result—that 
voters would not be able to eliminate election of the officers by charter or special 
law.  Similarly, because the summary makes clear that the existence of the 
constitutional offices, along with their duties and terms, would no longer be subject 
to change by charter, it would be redundant to state that county electors could not 
amend their charter to make the prohibited changes.   
II.  “Current State of the Law” 
Appellants next argue that the ballot language fails to describe “the current 
state of the law,” rendering it misleading in two ways.  First, Appellants claim that 
the ballot language is deficient because it does not inform voters that constitutional 
officers are typically elected.  Without this information, Appellants contend, the 
ballot summary’s statement that Amendment 10 “ensures election” of 
 
 
- 8 - 
constitutional officers gives voters the false impression that such elections are a 
new right, or amounts to “political rhetoric” leading voters to believe that the 
elections are under threat of elimination.  Second, Appellants argue that the 
summary misleads voters by failing to identify existing constitutional rights that 
will be affected by Amendment 10’s passage.  Because both arguments are without 
merit, we decline to find the ballot language misleading on this basis.    
 
First, the summary’s failure to inform voters that constitutional officers are 
elected unless otherwise provided by a county charter or approved special law does 
not mislead voters.  While Appellants suggest that this lack of information will 
lead voters to believe that elections are a new right, the summary does not state 
that Amendment 10 “creates” or “establishes” a right to elect constitutional 
officers.  Rather, it provides that Amendment 10 “ensures election” of 
constitutional officers, and this language accurately describes its effect.  Because it 
would prevent county charters or approved special laws from abolishing 
constitutional offices or allowing for their officeholders to be selected by an 
alternative method, Amendment 10 would therefore “ensure” that such officers 
would be elected in “all counties.”  
Nor does the ballot language suggest that elections are at risk of being 
eliminated if Amendment 10 is not passed.  The summary does not claim that 
Amendment 10’s passage is necessary to preserve the right to elect constitutional 
 
 
- 9 - 
officers, as claimed by Appellants.  Instead, it states that the amendment would 
ensure their election because, as noted above, this would be the result of 
Amendment 10’s restrictions on county charters and approved special laws.   
The ballot language is also not misleading for failing to identify existing 
constitutional rights that will be affected by Amendment 10.  While Appellants 
claim that the summary neglects to recognize its impact on article VIII, sections 
1(c), 1(d) and 6(e), the title indicates that the proposed amendment will alter article 
VIII, sections 1 and 6.  The summary does not need to further discuss its effect on 
voters’ ability under sections 1(c) and 6(e)2 to amend their county charter because 
it clearly explains that charters will be prohibited from taking certain actions if 
Amendment 10 passes.  Voters will draw the logical conclusion that they will not 
be permitted to amend their charter in a manner inconsistent with the amendment.  
The summary also states that Amendment 10’s passage would “ensure election” of 
constitutional officers; this accurately reflects that voters will no longer have a right 
under section 1(d) to approve a special law allowing for the selection of such 
officers by another method. 
                                          
 
 
2.  Article VIII, section 1(c) provides that county charters may be adopted, 
amended, or repealed only by county electors in a special election called for that 
purpose; section 6(e) incorporates a provision of the 1885 Florida Constitution 
granting Miami-Dade County citizens the right to adopt and revise a county 
charter. 
 
 
- 10 - 
III.  Multiple Subjects 
Appellants next contend that the ballot language is misleading because it 
groups together four separate measures.  Appellants have conceded, however, that 
CRC proposals are not bound by the single-subject requirement governing 
initiative petitions.  It follows that the bundling of measures creates a defect only if 
the measures are presented on the ballot in a misleading way.  Here, the ballot 
language is clear; we are therefore unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. 
First, the summary does not mislead voters by combining “wholly unrelated” 
proposals, as argued by Appellants.  The factual predicate for this argument is 
inaccurate.  Though the measures address different topics, there is a shared 
element.  As the title states, each proposal relates to “state and local government 
structure and operation.”  In any event, there is no basis for concluding that the 
relationship between the issues addressed in separate measures identified in the 
ballot summary results in deception of the voters.  
Appellants next claim that the CRC’s decision to bundle together separate 
measures left it unable to sufficiently describe the effect of the contested provision 
within the summary’s seventy-five word limit.  However, as earlier discussed, the 
ballot summary provides an adequate description of the amendment’s chief 
purpose as it relates to constitutional officers.  That it did so in fewer words than it 
 
 
- 11 - 
would have if the measure had been separately submitted to voters is of no 
consequence.   
Finally, the placement of the contested provision does not render the 
summary defective.  Appellants claim that the summary deceptively includes the 
contested provision regarding constitutional officers, which would have significant 
effects on the structure of local government, between two “popular” and “largely 
symbolic” state government measures.  But the Appellants do not explain how the 
structure of the ballot summary misleads the voters concerning what the proposal 
will do.  There is no basis to accept the argument that the proposal is invalid on the 
ground that voters would be more likely to vote for Amendment 10 because of the 
ordering of provisions within the summary.  There is nothing in the ordering that is 
deceptive in any way.   
IV.  Retroactive Application 
Appellants last argue that the summary is misleading because it fails to 
describe Amendment 10’s effect on changes previously made to county charters. 
The two appellants who address this issue take different positions.  Volusia County 
argues that the summary is misleading because it fails to disclose whether 
Amendment 10 will apply retroactively, thereby negating changes previously made 
to charters, or prospectively, only preventing charters from making the prohibited 
changes in the future.  Miami-Dade County, on the other hand, contends that the 
 
 
- 12 - 
amendment has retroactive application in arguing that the ballot summary is 
deficient because it does not inform voters that Amendment 10 would invalidate 
existing charter provisions.  However, because our earlier opinions indicate that the 
question of whether an amendment operates retroactively should be resolved in a 
post-election action, we decline to consider either argument.  See Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d 1209, 1216 (Fla. 2017) 
(holding that a proposed amendment’s retroactive application should be 
determined “after the electorate approved the amendment[]”); see also Fla. Hosp. 
Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 2008) (determining that an 
approved amendment applied retroactively); State v. Lavazolli, 434 So. 2d 321, 
322 (Fla. 1983) (determining that an approved amendment did not have retroactive 
application). 
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons explained above, we affirm the circuit court’s decision 
approving Amendment 10 for placement on the ballot.  No motion for rehearing 
will be allowed. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
Certified Judgments of Trial Courts in and for Leon County – James O. Shelfer, 
Judge - Case Nos. 372018CA001270 and 372018CA001342 – An Appeal from the 
District Court of Appeal, First District, Case Nos. 1D18-3361, 1D18-3362, and 
1D18-3363 
 
Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, Oren Rosenthal, Michael 
B. Valdes, and Miguel A. Gonzalez, Assistant County Attorneys, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant Miami-Dade County 
 
Daniel D. Eckert, County Attorney, DeLand, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellants Volusia County, Philip T. Fleuchaus, and T. Wayne Bailey 
 
Andrew J. Meyers, Broward County Attorney, Mark A. Journey, Senior Assistant 
County Attorney, Joseph K. Jarone, Scott Androne, and Claudia Capdesuner, 
Assistant County Attorneys, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant Broward County 
 
Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee Florida Association of Court Clerks, Inc. 
 
Timothy R. Qualls and Kayla M. Scarpone of Young Qualls, P.A., Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee Florida Tax Collectors Association 
 
John A. Tucker of Foley & Lardner, Jacksonville, Florida; Christina M. Kennedy 
and Virginia R. Beeson, Foley & Lardner, Orlando, Florida; and Robert H. Hosay 
and James A. McKee of Foley & Lardner, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee Anne M. Gannon, Palm Beach Tax Collector 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Edward M. 
Wenger, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Jordan Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee Kenneth J. Detzner, Secretary of State 
 
 
- 14 - 
 
Laura Youmans, Legislative Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Amicus Curiae Florida Association of Counties, Inc. 
 
Thomas W. Poulton of DeBevoise & Poulton, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, 
 
 
for Amicus Curiae Florida Sheriffs Association 
 
Gigi Rollini and Glenn Burhans, Jr., of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff 
& Sitterson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Amicus Curiae Association for Constitutional Officers, Inc.