Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voluntary Universal Pre K

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

1.  The Committee on Pre-K, sponsors of the initiative petition, filed a brief
in support of the proposed amendment.  No briefs were filed in opposition to the
proposed amendment.  
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC02-868
____________
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE:  
VOLUNTARY UNIVERSAL PRE-KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION.
[July 11, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
The Attorney General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to
the validity of a proposed citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution.
We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10; art V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.  This Court
issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs on the proposed
amendment.1  
The ballot title and summary for the proposed amendment are as follows:
-2-
Ballot title:
Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education
Ballot summary:
Every four-year-old child in Florida shall be offered
a high quality pre-kindergarten learning opportunity by the state no
later than the 2005 school year.  This voluntary early childhood
development and education program shall be established according to
high quality standards and shall be free for all Florida four-year olds
without taking away funds used for existing education, health and
development programs.
The text of the proposed amendment, which would rename section 1 to
section 1(a), and add sections 1(b) and 1(c) to article IX of the Florida
Constitution, and the paragraphs outlining the reasons for the amendment state:
WHEREAS, infancy and early childhood development set the stage
for a child’s future ability to interact socially and achieve academically,
and extensive research on the human brain shows that from birth to
age 5 children rapidly develop the language and cognitive capabilities
and emotional, social, regulatory and moral capacities upon which
child development proceeds.  To this end, these critical dimensions
must be nurtured in early, high quality, active learning pre-kindergarten
programs for all Florida four-year-old children to provide both short
and long-term benefits, including later school success. 
WHEREAS, it is not advisable to mandate such pre-kindergarten
programs for all children, but rather to require such programs to be
available to all children who wish to participate therein, and thus to
permit the parents, custodian, guardian or other caregiver to make the
individual determination on behalf of each of Florida’s four-year-olds
whether to participate therein.  
WHEREAS, existing resources of public institutions are limited in their
ability to support additional demand, and therefore a range of pre-
kindergarten settings, including school sites, childcare facilities and
homes, both public and non-public, should house pre-kindergarten
-3-
programming, so that parents, custodians, guardians, or other
caregivers may have choices among school settings, curricula, and
services in order to preserve their role as the primary protector of the
welfare of the children.
WHEREAS, current available knowledge accepts three primary
essentials for school readiness:  1) that children are physically healthy,
rested and well nourished; 2) that they are able to communicate needs,
wants and thoughts verbally; 3) and that they are enthusiastic and
curious in approaching new activities; accordingly, high quality pre-
kindergarten programs should reflect an understanding of how children
learn by providing appropriate preschool experiences in emphasizing
basic skills including growth in language, literacy, math concepts,
science arts, physical development and personal and social
competence.  
WHEREAS, current knowledge dictates that a high quality pre-
kindergarten learning opportunity must operate according to standards
that require a core curriculum and interactive, age appropriate,
individualized programming delivered according to children’s unique
scheduling needs and which promote and enhance children’s feelings
of comfort and self-esteem, and further dictates the importance of
appropriate staffing ratios, teacher qualifications and professional
development, physical environment, and the protection of child health
and safety, and therefore, it is necessary to operate the Florida early
childhood development and education program according to
professionally accepted standards.  
WHEREAS, Florida currently has many fine education, development
and health care programs that seek to address the needs of children
and adults but current resources do not meet the full demand of such
programs, and therefore the early childhood education and
development program described herein must be implemented in such a
way as not to remove any funds from any existing education,
development or health care program.
NOW THEREFORE, Article IX, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution
-4-
is hereby amended to renumber Section 1 as Section 1(a) and to add
the following Sections 1(b) and (c):
(b)  Every four-year-old child in Florida shall be provided by the State
a high quality pre-kindergarten learning opportunity in the form of an
early childhood development and education program which shall be
voluntary, high quality, free, and delivered according to professionally
accepted standards.  An early childhood development and education
program means an organized program designed to address and
enhance each child’s ability to make age appropriate progress in an
appropriate range of settings in the development of language and
cognitive capabilities and emotional, social, regulatory and moral
capacities through education in basic skills and such other skills as the
Legislature may determine to be appropriate.  
(c)  The early childhood education and development programs
provided by reason of subparagraph (b) shall be implemented no later
than the beginning of the 2005 school year through funds generated in
addition to those used for existing education, health, and development
programs.  Existing education, health, and development programs are
those funded by the State as of January 1, 2002 that provided for child
or adult education, health care, or development.
In determining the validity of initiative petitions, this Court is limited to  two
issues:  (1) whether the petition satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI,
section 3, of the Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary
are printed in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161, Florida
Statutes (2001).  See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Florida’s Amend.
to Reduce Class Size, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. April 25, 2002); Advisory
Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed
-5-
Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla.
2000).  This Court does not review the merits of a proposed amendment.  See,
e.g., Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health
Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1998).
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.
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So.
2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1998).  
Two reasons exist for the single-subject requirement.  The first reason is to
prevent “logrolling,” a practice that combines separate issues into a single proposal
to secure passage of an unpopular issue.  See High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d at
-6-
369.  To comply with this single-subject requirement, a proposed amendment must
manifest a “logical and natural oneness of purpose.”  See Fine v. Firestone, 448
So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984).  In this case the proposed amendment deals with a
single subject–the creation of a high-quality pre-kindergarten education program for
all Florida four-year-olds by 2005.  The proposal does not “logroll” additional or
unpopular issues into the amendment, but does manifest a “logical and natural
oneness of purpose.”  The fact that the proposed amendment requires the
Legislature to fund the pre-kindergarten program does not constitute impermissible
logrolling, but rather provides the details of how the amendment will be
implemented.  See Amendment to Reduce Class Size, 27 Fla. L. Weekly at  S368.
The second purpose of the single-subject requirement is to prevent a
constitutional amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of
multiple aspects of government, or from affecting other provisions of the
constitution.  See In re Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen.–Restrict Laws Related
to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1994).  As we explained in High
Speed Monorail:
Article XI, section 3 “protects against multiple ‘precipitous’ and
‘cataclysmic’ changes in the constitution by limiting to a single subject
what may be included in one amendment proposal.”  The single-
subject requirement is a “rule of restraint” that was placed in the
constitution by the people to allow the citizens, by initiative petition, to
-7-
propose and vote on singular changes in the functions of our
governmental structure.  
769 So. 2d at 369.  We have also observed that it is “difficult to conceive of a
constitutional amendment that would not affect other aspects of the government to
some extent.”  Id. (quoting Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen re Limited Casinos,
644 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1994)).  
In this case the proposed amendment does not substantially alter or perform
the functions of multiple aspects of government, and is similar to the amendments
approved in High Speed Monorail and Amendment to Reduce Class Size.  In those
cases, the proposed amendments did not specify a certain percentage of the budget
or a specific amount to be spent on the project contemplated by the proposed
amendment.  Likewise in this case, the proposal does not require the Legislature to
spend a specific percentage of the budget or a specific amount on the development
of the pre-kindergarten program.  The only requirement as to funding is that it must
be “through funds generated in addition to those used for existing education,
health, and development programs.”  The proposed amendment defines existing
“education, health, and development programs” as “those funded by the State as of
January 1, 2002 that provide for child or adult education, health care, or
development.”  This is unlike the situation in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney
2.  The language contained in the “whereas” clauses of the proposed
initiative is not part of the actual proposed amendment and will not appear in the
Florida Constitution if the amendment is adopted.  “Performance of a judicial
function is therefore not an issue with regard to the ‘whereas’ language.”  Advisory
Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from the Health Hazards of Second-
Hand Smoke, 814 So. 2d 415, 422 n.8 (Fla. 2002); see also Letter from Robert A.
Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, to the Honorable Charles
Wells, Chief Justice, and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida at 7 (May 2,
2002) (on file with Supreme Court of Florida) (“These clauses are not part of the
actual proposed amendment to Article IX, section 1, Florida Constitution.”)  
-8-
General re Requirement for Adequate Public Education Funding, 703 So. 2d 446,
450 (Fla. 1997), where this Court struck down a proposed constitutional
amendment requiring that forty percent of state appropriations, not including lottery
proceeds, or federal funds, be allocated to education.  The proposed amendment
failed in Adequate Public Education Funding because “its rigid funding percentage
actually performed the appropriation function of the Legislature and removed
entirely the Governor’s ability to veto any portion of that appropriation.”  High
Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d at 370.  The requirement on the source of funding in
this case does not substantially alter or perform multiple functions of state
government because it does not actually perform the appropriation function of the
Legislature; it simply provides that funding must be in addition to current funding
for existing education, health and development programs.  Also, the proposal does
not perform any judicial functions by adjudicating specific facts.2
-9-
Finally, as in Amendment to Reduce Class Size, it appears “the branches of
government are left with wide discretion in determining the details of the project.” 
27 Fla. L. Weekly at S368 (quoting High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d at 370-71). 
For these reasons the proposed amendment does not create “precipitous” or
“cataclysmic” changes in the functions of multiple branches of government as to
render the proposed amendment clearly and conclusively defective.  We conclude
the proposed amendment complies with the single-subject requirement.
Ballot Title and Summary
Section 101.161(1) 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).  Section 101.161 requires the ballot title and
summary “state in clear and unambiguous language the initiative’s primary
purpose.”  Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re People’s Property Rights
Amendments Providing Compensation for Restricting Real Property Use May
-10-
Cover Multiple Subjects, 699 So. 2d 1304, 1307 (Fla. 1997).  Furthermore, the
ballot title and summary must be accurate and informative.  See Advisory Opinion
to the Attorney Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 803 (Fla. 1998).  The
purpose of section 101.161 is “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.”  Id.  Finally, the ballot title and summary
may not be read in isolation, but must be read together in determining whether the
ballot information properly informs the voters.  See Advisory Opinion to the
Attorney Gen re Tax Limitation, 673 So. 2d 864, 868 (Fla. 1996).  
The title of the initiative in this case is “Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten
Education.”  The ballot summary clearly and unambiguously sets forth the
initiative’s primary purpose, stating every four-year-old child in Florida shall be
offered a high quality pre-kindergarten learning opportunity by the State no later
than the 2005 school year.  The ballot summary also states the funding for the pre-
kindergarten learning opportunity “shall be free . . . without taking away funds used
for existing education, health and development programs.”  Thus, when read
together, the ballot title and summary are accurate and informative, and provide fair
notice of the content of the proposed amendment so that the voter will not be
misled and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot.  Finally, the ballot title does
-11-
not exceed fifteen words and the ballot summary does not exceed seventy-five
words in accordance with section 101.161(1).  For these reasons, we conclude the
ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1). 
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
Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001).  This opinion
encompasses no other issues, and should not be construed as favoring or
opposing the passage of the proposed amendment.
It is so ordered.  
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding - Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General
The Honorable Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
The Honorable Alexander Penelas, The Committee on Pre-K, Miami, Florida; and
Parker D. Thomson and Carol A. Licko of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Miami,
Florida,
for The Committee on Pre-K (supporting the initiative petition)
Christina A. Zawisza, Children First Project, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova
Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
-12-
for Children First Project and The Early Childhood Initiative
Foundation, et al., Amici Curiae