Title: Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-1165 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: 
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT TO VOTE IN FLORIDA ELECTIONS. 
 
January 16, 2020 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Attorney General of Florida has requested this Court’s opinion as to the 
validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the 
Florida Constitution.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), 
Fla. Const.  We approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot. 
BACKGROUND 
On July 15, 2019, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an advisory 
opinion regarding the validity of an initiative petition sponsored by Florida Citizen 
Voters (the Sponsor) and titled “Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida 
Elections.”  Namely, the Attorney General asks whether the proposed amendment 
complies with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida 
Constitution, and whether the ballot title and summary of the proposed amendment 
 
- 2 - 
comply with the clarity requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes 
(2019).  We invited briefing from interested parties regarding the validity of the 
initiative petition.  We received one brief, from the Sponsor, arguing in favor of the 
proposed amendment.  And we received no briefs in opposition to the proposed 
amendment.  On October 21, 2019, we dispensed with oral argument.   
The full text of the proposed amendment, which would amend article VI, 
section 2 of the Florida Constitution, provides: 
ARTICLE VI. Section 2.  Electors. 
 
Every citizen Only a citizen of the United States who is at least 
eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if 
registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the county where 
registered.1 
 
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is: “Citizenship Requirement to Vote 
in Florida Elections.”  And the ballot summary states: 
This amendment provides that only United States Citizens who are at 
least eighteen years of age, a permanent resident of Florida, and 
registered to vote, as provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in a 
Florida Election. 
                                          
 
 
1.  The proposed amendment contains a de minimis drafting error in that the 
proposed amendment either inadvertently strikes or inadvertently neglects to 
underline the word “citizen.”  The text of the proposed amendment should have 
been drafted in relevant part either as “Every Only a citizen of the United States” 
or as “Every citizen Only a citizen of the United States.”  Because it is abundantly 
clear that the word “citizen” is not being permanently stricken from article VI, 
section 2, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability of any voter 
confusion and that this scrivener’s error is not a basis for invalidating the proposed 
amendment. 
 
- 3 - 
ANALYSIS 
Standard of Review 
 
In reviewing the validity of an initiative petition, “[t]his Court has 
traditionally applied a deferential standard of review.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. 
re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions (Medical Marijuana I), 132 So. 
3d 786, 794 (Fla. 2014).  “[T]he Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether 
the amendment itself satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 
3, Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary satisfy the 
clarity requirements of section 101.161, Florida Statutes.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Water & Land Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. 
Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013).  “In order for the 
Court to invalidate a proposed amendment, the record must show that the proposal 
is clearly and conclusively defective on either ground.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. 
re Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People Differently Based on Race in 
Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000). 
 
Here, no briefs were submitted in opposition to the initiative petition.  And 
our independent review—which is limited to two issues—yields no basis for 
concluding that the initiative petition meets the “high threshold” of being “clearly 
and conclusively defective.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Limits or Prevents 
Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply, 177 So. 3d 235, 246 (Fla. 2015). 
 
- 4 - 
Single-Subject Requirement 
Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides that initiative 
petitions like the one here “shall embrace but one subject and matter directly 
connected therewith.”  The purpose of this single-subject requirement is to 
“prevent[] a proposal ‘from engaging in either of two practices: (a) logrolling; or 
(b) substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of state 
government.’ ”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 795 (quoting Water & Land 
Conservation, 123 So. 3d at 50-51).  “A proposed amendment meets this test when 
it ‘may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as 
component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.’ ”  Advisory Op. 
to Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative Requiring Legislative Determination that Sales 
Tax Exemptions & Exclusions Serve a Pub. Purpose, 880 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 
2004) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984)).  In other 
words, the proposed amendment must have “a logical and natural oneness of 
purpose.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voting Restoration Amendment, 215 So. 
3d 1202, 1206 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Rights of Elec. 
Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice, 188 So. 3d 822, 827 (Fla. 2016)).  
Here, the proposed amendment meets this test.  It does not engage in either of the 
two prohibited practices. 
 
- 5 - 
Beginning with the first prohibited practice of “logrolling,” this Court has 
defined that practice as “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.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 
1336, 1339 (Fla. 1994).  The proposed amendment does not logroll.  It merely 
makes a minor change to existing constitutional language.  That is, it amends 
article VI, section 2—a constitutional provision that “discusses voter 
qualifications,” Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs. v. Hood, 885 So. 2d 
373, 375 (Fla. 2004)—by replacing the word “Every” with “Only a.”  In doing so, 
the proposed amendment makes directly clear that United States citizenship and 
the other items set forth in article VI, section 2 are voter eligibility requirements.  
Those voter eligibility requirements are “component parts or aspects of a single 
dominant plan or scheme,” Sales Tax Exemptions & Exclusions, 880 So. 2d at 634 
(quoting Fine, 448 So. 2d at 990), to constitutionalize certain language to make 
clear that only United States citizens who satisfy those requirements may 
participate in Florida elections. 
As to the second prohibited practice, the proposed amendment does not 
“substantially alter[] or perform[] the functions of multiple branches of state 
government.”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 795 (quoting Water & Land 
Conservation, 123 So. 3d at 50-51).  In fact, it does not appear that the proposed 
 
- 6 - 
amendment will alter—let alone substantially alter—any functions of any branches 
of state government.  Although article VI, section 2 currently uses the inclusionary 
word “Every” as it relates to electors, the relevant voter-eligibility statute uses the 
exclusionary word “only.”  See § 97.041(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019).  The proposed 
amendment simply constitutionalizes that statutory language. 
Ballot Title and Summary 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the following requirements 
for ballot titles and summaries: 
(1) Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public 
measure is submitted to the vote of the people, a ballot summary of 
such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and 
unambiguous language on the ballot after the list of candidates, 
followed by the word “yes” and also by the word “no,” and shall be 
styled in such a manner that a “yes” vote will indicate approval of the 
proposal and a “no” vote will indicate rejection. . . .  The ballot 
summary of the amendment or other public measure 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. 
 
The purpose of these statutory requirements is “to ensure that the ballot summary 
and title ‘provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment’ to voters 
so that they ‘will not be misled as to [the proposed amendment’s] purpose, and can 
cast an intelligent and informed ballot.’ ”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter 
Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d 1209, 1215 (Fla. 2017) (alteration in original) 
(quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care 
 
- 7 - 
Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1998)).  In determining whether a ballot title 
and summary comply with section 101.161(1), this Court “consider[s] two 
questions: (1) whether the ballot title and summary, in clear and unambiguous 
language, fairly inform the voters of the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2) 
whether the language of the ballot title and summary, as written, will be 
affirmatively misleading to voters.”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 797. 
 
Here, the ballot title and summary easily meet the respective word-limitation 
requirements of section 101.161(1).  The ballot title and summary also fairly 
inform the voters of the chief purpose of the proposed amendment and do not 
affirmatively mislead the voters. 
In analyzing whether a ballot title and summary clearly and unambiguously 
inform the voters of the chief purpose of a proposed amendment, this Court must 
evaluate the amendment’s chief purpose.  We do so by “look[ing] . . . to objective 
criteria inherent in the amendment itself, such as the amendment’s main effect.”  
Fla. Dep’t of State v. Fla. State Conference of NAACP Branches, 43 So. 3d 662, 
667 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 18 (Fla. 2000)).  Here, 
the proposed amendment’s “main effect” is to make directly clear that only United 
States citizens who satisfy the requirements of article VI, section 2 are eligible to 
vote.  The proposed amendment achieves this effect by replacing inclusionary 
language with exclusionary language.  See § 97.041(1)(a), Fla. Stat.  The ballot 
 
- 8 - 
title references a “[c]itizenship [r]equirement,” and the ballot summary informs 
voters in no uncertain terms “that only United States Citizens who are at least 
eighteen years of age, a permanent resident of Florida, and registered to vote, as 
provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in a Florida Election.”  The ballot title 
and summary do not affirmatively state that the proposed amendment “ ‘creates’ or 
‘establishes,’ ” Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner, 253 So. 3d 507, 511 (Fla. 2018), a 
citizenship requirement—or any other requirement—for voting.  Instead, the ballot 
summary “accurately describes,” id., in part that “only United States Citizens . . . 
shall be qualified to vote in a Florida Election.”  That statement “in fact is true.”  
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab., 818 So. 2d 491, 498 
(Fla. 2002). 
In the end, the ballot title and summary “comply with section 101.161(1) 
because they are not clearly and conclusively defective.”  Solar Energy Choice, 
188 So. 3d at 825.  Indeed, they are “accurate and informative.”  Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amendment, 880 So. 2d 675, 678 (Fla. 
2004).  Far from being “affirmatively misleading,” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 
3d at 797, the ballot summary largely recites in full what would be the entirety of 
article VI, section 2, as amended.  See Voting Restoration Amendment, 215 So. 3d 
at 1208 (“[T]he ballot title and summary also do not mislead voters with regard to 
the actual content of the proposed amendment.  Rather, together they recite the 
 
- 9 - 
language of the amendment almost in full.”).  The summary thus “accurately 
describe[s] the scope of the text of the amendment.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 804 (Fla. 1998). 
CONCLUSION 
 
We conclude that the proposed amendment complies with the single-subject 
requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and that the ballot 
title and summary comply with section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.  Accordingly, 
we approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., 
concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceedings – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General 
 
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, and John 
Guard, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
James A. McKee, Tallahassee, Florida, and W. Bradley Russell of Foley & 
Lardner, LLP, Jacksonville, Florida,  
 
for Interested Party, Florida Citizen Voters