Case Name: Donald G. RAY, Louis P. Kalivoda, Sybil C. Mobley, David W. Bowers, and Clarence Fort, Appellants, v. Sandra MORTHAM, Florida Secretary of State in her capacity as Florida's Chief Elections Officer, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-09-02
Citations: 742 So. 2d 1276
Docket Number: No. 94,653
Parties: Donald G. RAY, Louis P. Kalivoda, Sybil C. Mobley, David W. Bowers, and Clarence Fort, Appellants, v. Sandra MORTHAM, Florida Secretary of State in her capacity as Florida’s Chief Elections Officer, Appellee.
Judges: HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 742
Pages: 1276–1290

Head Matter:
Donald G. RAY, Louis P. Kalivoda, Sybil C. Mobley, David W. Bowers, and Clarence Fort, Appellants, v. Sandra MORTHAM, Florida Secretary of State in her capacity as Florida’s Chief Elections Officer, Appellee.
No. 94,653.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 2, 1999.
Robert J. Boyd and Laura Boyd Pearce of MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and George Waas, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appel-lee.
Talbot D’Alemberte, Tallahassee, Florida, for Alan C. Sundberg, Amicus Curiae.
Frank A. Shepherd, Miami, Florida, and John H. Findley, Sacramento, California, for Pacific Legal Foundation, Amicus Curiae.
. As a result of the November 1998 elections, Katherine Harris replaced Sandra Mortham as Secretary of State, effective January 1999. The lawsuit was commenced prior to the time Katherine Harris became Secretary of State.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal the trial court's order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellee, denying appellants' complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief that sought to prevent enforcement of article VI, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, which limits the number of consecutive terms for which certain candidates for state offices can appear on the ballot. Appellants, who are registered voters residing in the state senate districts of Senators Thomas, Kirkpatrick and Hargrett, appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which invoked this Court's pass-through jurisdiction for issues of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const.
FACTS
In 1992, the citizens of this State amended the Florida Constitution to include article VI, section 4(b).. This amendment limits the number of consecutive terms of office for state legislators, federal legislators, the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Florida cabinet. It provides, in pertinent part, that no person may appear on the ballot for reelection to any of these offices "if, by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years."
This amendment was placed on the ballot via a citizens' initiative petition, pursuant to article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, which reserves to the people of this State "[t]he power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of th[e] constitution by initiative . provided that, any such revision or amendment . shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." The citizens' initiative petition explained the purpose and goals of the initiative petition:
The people of Florida believe that politicians who remain in office too long may become preoccupied with re-election and become beholden to special interests and bureaucrats, and that present limitations on the President of the United States and Governor of Florida show that term limitations can increase voter participation, citizen involvement in government, and the number of persons who will run for elective office.
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General — Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1991) (hereinafter Limited Political Terms) (quoting citizens' petition). To meet these goals, the petition requested that the Florida Constitution be amended "to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States." Id. The initiative petition contained a severability clause providing that:
If any portion of this measure is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this measure, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application. The people of Florida declare their intention that persons elected to offices of public trust will continue voluntarily to observe the wishes of the people as stated in this initiative in the event any provision of this initiative is held invalid.
Id.
The constitution and laws of this state require that every citizens' initiative petition be submitted to this Court for an opinion on its compliance with article XI, section 3 and section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1997). See art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const.; § 16.061(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Article XI, section 3, dictates that any amendment placed on the ballot via citizen's initiative petition "shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." Section 101.161(1) requires that when an amendment is submit^ ted to the voters, the substance of the amendment must appear on the ballot in "clear and unambiguous language," not exceeding 75 words, explaining the "chief purpose" of the measure. The measure must also include a ballot title not exceeding 15 words. See id.
Regarding the single-subject requirement, we explained in Limited Political Terms that a "proposed amendment meets the single-subject requirement if it has 'a logical and natural oneness of purpose.' " 592 So.2d at 227 (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla.1984)). Stated differently, we explained that a proposed amendment is valid if it may be "logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of [this] single dominant plan or scheme." Id. As we explained in Fine, "the single-subject restraint on constitutional change by initiative proposals is intended to direct the electorate's attention to one change which may affect only one subject and matters directly connected therewith." 448 So.2d at 989.
The majority of the Court held in Limited Political Terns that the proposed amendment complied with article XI, section 3, concluding that the amendment addressed the "sole subject" of "limiting the number of consecutive terms that certain elected public officers may serve." 592 So.2d at 227. In so holding, we adhered to our requirement in Fine of "strict compli-anee with the single-subject rule in the initiative process for constitutional change." 448 So.2d at 989.
In Limited Political Terms, we also reviewed the ballot title and summary for the amendment to assure compliance with the statutory ballot summary requirements. The ballot summary stated as follows:
LIMITED POLITICAL TERMS IN CERTAIN ELECTIVE OFFICES
Limits terms by prohibiting incumbents who have held the same elective office for the preceding eight years from appearing on the ballot for re-election to that office. Offices covered are: Florida Representative and Senator, Lieutenant Governor, Florida Cabinet, and U.S. Senator and Representative. Terms of office beginning before approval are not counted.
Limited Political Terms, 592 So.2d at 228 (quoting ballot title and summary). The Court found that this ballot title and summary satisfied the requirement that it be "fair and advise[d] the voter sufficiently to enable him [or her] intelligently to cast his [or her] ballot," as we have interpreted section 101.161 to require. Id. at 228 (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 155 (Fla.1982)). Accordingly, the amendment was placed on the ballot.
The amendment was approved by the electorate in the 1992 elections. Three years later, in 1995, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995), holding that state attempts to restrict candidacy for membership in either house of the United States Congress violate the Qualifications Clause of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.
Thereafter, appellants brought this complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief requesting that the trial court strike the entire amendment. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment asserting that there was no material issue of fact. The trial court rejected the attack on the amendment and granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, appellants argue that the trial court was in error and that the entire amendment must be stricken because: (1) the unconstitutional portions relating to federal legislators cannot be severed from the remainder of the amendment; and (2) the amendment violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The amici curiae arguing in support of appellants also assert that we should revisit our earlier decision in Limited Political Terms and strike the amendment because it actually encompasses more than one subject.
SEVERABILITY
We begin our analysis with two uncontroverted facts. First, there is no question but that, based on the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Thornton, section 4(b)(5) and (6) of article VI, placing limits on the terms of the U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, are unenforceable as violative of the United States Constitution's Qualifications Clause. See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d 798, 801 n. 1. (Fla.1998) (hereinafter Term Limits Pledge); Thornton, 514 U.S. at 837-38, 115 S.Ct. 1842. Second, there is no question but that nearly 77% of those voting on the amendment approved it. See supra note 5.
Whether the doctrine of sever-ability applies to constitutional provisions is a question of first impression in this state, although the doctrine has been applied by this Court to legislative enactments. See, e.g., Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080, 1089 (Fla.1987). Sev-erability is a judicial doctrine recognizing the obligation of the judiciary to uphold the constitutionality of legislative enactments where it is possible to strike only the unconstitutional portions. See State v. Calhoun County, 126 Fla. 376, 383, 170 So. 883, 886 (1936). This doctrine is derived from the respect of the judiciary for the separation of powers, and is "designed to show great deference to the legislative prerogative to enact laws." Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 415 (Fla.1991).
The severability analysis answers the question of whether "the taint of an illegal provision has infected the entire enactment, requiring the whole unit to fail." Schmitt, 590 So.2d at 414. Stated simply: "The severability of a statutory provision is determined by its relation to the overall legislative intent of the statute of which it is a part, and whether the statute, less the invalid provisions, can still accomplish this intent." Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1173 (Fla.1991) (quoting Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 455 So.2d 311, 317 (Fla.1984)).
Appellants urge that the severability of invalid portions of constitutional amendments should be analyzed under the test applied in Smith v. Department of Insurance to a legislative enactment. That test provides that:
When a part of a statute is declared unconstitutional the remainder of the act will be permitted to stand provided: (1) the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the remaining valid provisions, (2) the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of those which are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the Legislature would have passed the one without the other and, (4) an act complete in itself remains after the invalid provisions are stricken.
507 So.2d at 1089 (quoting Cramp v. Board of Pub. Instruction, 137 So.2d 828, 830 (Fla.1962)). Appellee counters that it is unnecessary to perform a severability analysis and that the unconstitutional provisions of the amendment simply should not be enforced.
Because certain portions of the term limits amendment are undoubtedly void under the United States Constitution, see Thornton, 514 U.S. at 837-38, 115 S.Ct. 1842, we find it necessary to address the effect of the void provisions on the remainder of the amendment. However, we are also mindful that the initiative power of fully informed citizens to amend the Constitution must be respected as an important aspect of the democratic process. Therefore, just as we view the severability of laws with deference to the legislative prerogative to enact the law, we conclude that we must afford no less deference to constitutional amendments initiated by our citizens and uphold the amendment if, after striking the invalid provisions, the purpose of the amendment can still be accomplished.
Thus, we agree with appellants that a severability analysis is required, but disagree that the amendment at issue cannot survive such an analysis. Appellants maintain that they need only cast doubt on whether the amendment would have passed without the provisions relating to federal legislators and that unless appellee can "prove" that the voters would have adopted the amendment had it not contained provisions limiting the terms of U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators the amendment must be stricken. We conclude that this would be an inappropriate burden to place on appellee, and one that we have not imposed, even when analyzing a legislative enactment. See, e.g., Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687, 694 (Fla.1990); Smith, 507 So.2d at 1090.
The issue of severability arises only after an amendment already approved by voters has been challenged. Rather than ignoring the results of the election and requiring the Secretary of State to show that voters would have approved an amendment without the unconstitutional provisions, the burden is properly placed on the challenging party. The analysis urged by appellants would be the antithesis of the purpose underlying severability — to preserve the constitutionality of enactments where it is possible to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that we should adopt the severability analysis that we have applied to legislative enactments.
Appellants do not dispute that prongs (1) and (4) of the severability analysis are satisfied, but assert that the amendment must fail because prongs (2) and (3) cannot be established. As to prong (2), which requires an analysis of whether the purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of the void provisions, appellants assert that the purpose of the amendment cannot be satisfied without the provisions regarding term limits for federal legislators.
Appellants base this argument on our decision in Limited Political Terms, where we held that the amendment satisfied the single-subject requirement. Appellants maintain that because we held in Limited Political Terms that the amendment represents "one purpose," the purpose of the amendment cannot be accomplished without all the provisions. Thus, they argue that the void provisions cannot be severed and the entire amendment must fail.
We do not agree with appellants that the amendment's compliance with single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 mandates that the entire amendment be stricken. The single-subject requirement was designed to "protect! ] against multiple 'precipitous' and 'cataclysmic' changes in the constitution by limiting to a single subject what may be included in any one amendment proposal." Term, Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d at 801 (quoting Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General, 705 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1998)). By contrast, the severability analysis concerns whether, absent the invalid portions, the statute (or in this case, amendment) can nonetheless accomplish its purpose. See Martinez, 582 So.2d at 1173.
Therefore, simply because an amendment satisfies the single-subject requirement does not mean that the provisions of the amendment are so mutually dependent on one another that the overall purpose of the amendment cannot be accomplished absent the invalid provisions. Because each citizens' initiative amendment must satisfy the single-subject requirement before being placed on the ballot, appellants' argument would require us to invalidate the entirety of every citizens' initiative amendment whenever a portion was declared invalid after the passage of the amendment.
In this case, as set forth in the initiative petition, the overall purpose to be accomplished by this amendment was the limitation of terms for elected officials, be they state legislators, federal legislators, or cabinet officials. Simply because the purpose cannot be accomplished as to the class of federal legislators does not mean that the overriding purpose of the amendment cannot be accomplished as to the remaining offices. > Therefore, we conclude that the severance of the unconstitutional provisions relating to federal legislators is not fatal to the amendment.
In reaching this conclusion we reject appellants' reliance on the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision in Duggan v. Beermann, 249 Neb. 411, 544 N.W.2d 68 (1996), where the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the valid portions of Nebraska's term limits amendments relating to state legislators could not be severed from the invalid portions relating to federal legislators, so that all the provisions must fail. We find that case distinguishable both factually and because, unlike Florida, Nebraska does not have a mandated pre-ballot judicial review procedure.
In Duggan, there were numerous proposed amendments, poorly and confusingly drafted, purporting to amend four existing provisions and add four new sections to Nebraska's constitution. The amendments were written in such a way that the provisions relating to state offices were "intertwined" with, and incorporated by reference in the provisions relating to congressional offices. See id. at 79. The amendment, which had not been subject to a pre-ballot review by the Nebraska Supreme Court, was found to have other constitutional flaws as well, not the least of which was that the petition's "object clause" failed to inform voters that the measure applied to state legislators. Id. at 80.
In contrast, in this State there is an extensive statutorily and constitutionally mandated pre-ballot review of citizen initiatives to determine if the proposed amendment satisfies the single-subject requirement and if the ballot title and summary are clear and unambiguous. Unlike the Nebraska amendment, this ballot summary clearly and unambiguously' advised the voters that it applied to state and federal legislators.
We find this case to be more akin to the term limits amendment analyzed in the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill, 316 Ark. 251, 872 S.W.2d 349 (1994), aff'd sub nom. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 837-38, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995). In Hill, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional portions of the amendment to the Arkansas Constitution relating to federal legislators could be severed from the portions relating to state legislators. 872 S.W.2d at 358-59. The amendment in that case was similar in structure to ours, being divided into sections for state legislators, congressional legislators, and executive branch officials. See id. at 351-52. The court concluded that the portions relating to state legislators were clearly "functionally independent" of the portions relating to federal legislators and that the amendment in that case served one overall purpose, even without the invalid portions relating to federal legislators, which was "the limitation of public service terms." Id. at 358.
Likewise, we find that the portions of this amendment are functionally independent. The unconstitutional provisions of this amendment can be stricken without disrupting the integrity of the remaining provisions. Further, the overall purpose of limiting political terms can still be accomplished after the unconstitutional portion is stricken.
We next address prong (3), that is, whether the valid and invalid features are so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the citizens would not have passed the one without the other. As to appellants' argument that the amendment must be stricken because it is impossible to be certain that the voters would have adopted the amendment had it not contained provisions limiting the terms of federal legislators, this argument misplaces the burden of proof, which is properly on the challenging party.
Appellants' argument that "it is more likely that the people would not have voted for term limits for state representatives and senators had they known of the unconstitutionality of term limits for U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators," Appellants' Initial Brief at 15, is based on nothing more than conjecture and speculation. Although the amici arguing in support of appellants point to several media reports suggesting that the backers of the amendment often focused on the excesses of career federal legislators, see Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants, according to the statistical evidence in the record, voters nationwide supported measures for term limits in nearly equivalent proportions, whether directed at federal legislators, state legislators or both.
Moreover, it is clear from the initiative petition that severability was anticipated by the voters. The initiative petition in this case specifically contained a severability clause, which is persuasive of the fact that the framers intended sever-ability to save the amendment in case portions of it were declared invalid. Cf. Moreau v. Lewis, 648 So.2d 124, 127 (Fla.1995); Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So.2d at 1080. The full text of the amendment, including the severability clause, was disseminated throughout the state pri- or to the election and was posted conspicuously in every precinct on the day of the election, thus providing voters with clear notice of severability.
Finally, we find the reasoning of the Arkansas Supreme Court relevant to our analysis of this prong:
The fact that one category of persons is eliminated [from the amendment] does not mean that the voters did not intend it to apply to the remaining two categories. Nor do we consider term limits on federal legislators to be the bait which enticed voters to vote aye on the amendment as a whole. There is nothing to suggest that this was the case. In short, we are confident that [the amendment] would have passed even without the inclusion of the [section relating to federal legislators] in that the majority was voting for a concept—the limitation of public service terms.
Hill, 872 S.W.2d at 358 (emphasis supplied).
In conclusion, we find that Florida's term limits amendment is viable and complete, even when the invalid portions are stricken. Even without the invalid provisions, the amendment accomplishes its purpose of limiting political terms of state officeholders. Finally, appellants have failed to establish that the voters' purpose in passing the amendment was only to limit terms of federal officeholders and the voters would not have approved the term limits amendment if only state officeholders had been included. We thus conclude that the amendment survives a severability analysis and should not be stricken. We next consider whether we should revisit our decision in Limited Political Terms.
REVISITING OUR DECISION IN LIMITED POLITICAL TERMS
The amici arguing in support of appellants in this case have asked us to revisit our decision in Limited Political Terms, where we held that this amendment complied with single-subject and ballot title and summary requirements. See 592 So.2d at 227-29. The amici argue that our earlier decision was in error, that Justices Kogan and Overton were correct in their dissenting opinions, and that we should now conclude that the petition did not in fact embrace one single subject and was therefore improper.
In arguing that we should revisit our decision in Limited Political Terms, the amici have suggested that advisory opinions from this Court have little prece-dential value and are only persuasive, citing to Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach, 66 So.2d 235, 236-37 (Fla.1953), Lee v. Dowda, 155 Fla. 68, 19 So.2d 570 (1944), and Collins v. Horten, 111 So.2d 746, 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). However, none of these cases concern advisory opinions required by section 16.061, Florida Statutes (1997). At the outset, we point out that when our "advisory" opinions conclude that there is a defect in the ballot title and summary or a violation of the single-subject requirement, the effect of our "advice" is the removal of the amendment from the ballot. See, e.g., Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d at 804; Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re People's Property Rights Amendments, 699 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Fla.1997).
We addressed the precedential effect of our advisory opinions on single-subject and ballot title and summary issues in Florida League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So.2d 397 (Fla.1992). In Smith, the Attorney General had previously requested this Court's opinion regarding the proposed initiative petition's compliance with article XI, section 3 and section 101.161. 607 So.2d at 398. We held that the petition satisfied both these requirements. See In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Homestead Valuation Limitation, 581 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.1991).
Subsequent to our advisory opinion on the proposed amendment, interested parties brought a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the proposed amendment be removed from the ballot, bringing to the Court's "attention an issue not addressed in our prior opinion regarding the ballot title and summary." Smith, 607 So.2d at 398. Before considering the merits of the petition, we first addressed whether the previous advisory opinion precluded us from considering the petition for mandamus. We acknowledged the principle that advisory opinions "are not binding judicial precedent." Id. at 399 n. 3. However, we stressed that
relitigation of issues expressly addressed in an advisory opinion on a proposed amendment is strongly disfavored and almost ahvays will result in this Court refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Renewed litigation will be entertained only in truly extraordinary cases, such as in the present case where a vital issue was not addressed in the earlier opinion.
Id. at 399 (emphasis supplied). Thus, we have previously made clear that although our advisory opinions are not strictly binding precedent in the most technical sense, only under extraordinary circumstances will we revisit an issue decided in our earlier advisory opinions.
This case does not present such a circumstance. The argument on whether the amendment complies with the single-subject requirement is not new argument on an important issue not addressed in our earlier opinion. Along with the ballot title and summary discussion, the single-subject question was the precise issue covered in our prior opinion. The subsequent invalidity of the provisions relating to federal legislators due to the Supreme Court's decision in Thornton does not present a basis for us to recede from our earlier decision. Therefore, we conclude that our earlier decision in Limited Political Terms is binding on the single-subject issue and we find no reason to reconsider the issue and recede from that decision.
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
Finally, in the Limited Political Terms opinion, this Court identified the amendment as one imposing a qualification on holding office. 592 So.2d at 228. Therefore, the validity of this amendment under the United States Constitution should be analyzed like other candidate qualification rules such as age, residency, mental competency or restoration of civil rights for persons previously convicted of a felony. Candidate qualification rules, such as term limits, implicate the right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast their votes effectively, which are rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 786-87, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983).
In Burdick v. Takushi 504 U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992), the United States Supreme Court explained the analysis to be applied in challenges to restrictions on candidacy such as candidate qualification rules. The Court held that in analyzing whether the restrictions are unconstitutional, the reviewing court must weigh the "character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments" against the interest put forward by the state in justifying the burden on these rights. Id. (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564). Both the Arkansas and California Supreme Courts have concluded that the electorate's interest in limiting terms outweighs the interests of candidates for reelection and the voters who wished to vote for those particular candidates. See Hill, 872 S.W.2d at 360; Legislature of Cal. v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 492, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309 (1991).
In this case, according to the citizens' petition, the interest of the voters in limiting terms was three-fold: (1) to increase voter participation, (2) to increase citizen involvement in government, and (3) to increase the number of persons who will run for elective office. See Limited Political Terms, 592 So.2d at 226 (quoting the initiative petition). The voters have also expressed a belief that "politicians who remain in office too long may become preoccupied with re-election and become beholden to special interests and bureaucrats." Id. As the Arkansas Supreme Court recognized, "[i]t is not the function of this court to agree or disagree with the purpose and rationale" behind the term limits amendment. Hill, 872 S.W.2d at 360. Applying the Burdick analysis and weighing the degree of infringement against the state interest, we agree with the conclusion of the Arkansas and California Supreme Courts that this type of amendment passes muster under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Hill, 872 S.W.2d at 360; Eu, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d at 1314-29.
We reject appellants' argument that the amendment violates the equal protection clause by diluting the votes of voters who reside in rural counties that do not have as many senators representing the counties' interests as voters in urban counties. We conclude that the constitutionality of this amendment is better analyzed under the Supreme Court's decision in Burdick. See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 787 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1564 (declining to apply an equal protection analysis on candidate qualification restrictions).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that a severability analysis applies to constitutional amendments, that the amendment satisfies that analysis, and that the valid portions can be severed from the invalid portions. We also conclude that the amendment withstands scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and find it unnecessary to revisit our decision in the earlier advisory opinion regarding the amendment's compliance with the single-subject requirement.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
LEWIS, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
. The full text of the amendment reads as follows:
(b) No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to any of the following offices:
(1) Florida representative,
(2) Florida senator,
(3) Florida Lieutenant governor,
(4) any office of the Florida cabinet,
(5) U.S. Representative from Florida, or
(6) U.S. Senator from Florida
if, by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years.
Art. VI, § 4(b), Fla. Const.
. Article IV, section 10 of the Florida Constitution provides:
The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI.
. Section 16.061(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part:
The Attorney General shall, within 30 days after receipt of a proposed revision or amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the Secretary of State, petition the Supreme Court, requesting an advisory opinion regarding the compliance of the text of the proposed amendment or revision with s. 3, Art. XI of the State Constitution and the compliance of the proposed ballot title and substance with s. 101.161.
. The official vote, as certified by the Secretary of State, was 3,625,500 in favor of the amendment, and 1,097,127 opposed. (Defendant's ex. #1.)
. In their complaint, appellants addressed their arguments only to the portions of the amendment regarding state legislators. At oral argument, appellants agreed that if their rationale prevailed, the entire amendment must be stricken, including the portions addressing Florida's Lieutenant Governor and cabinet.
. We authorized the filing of briefs by amici curiae in support of the positions of the respective parties.
. See § 101.171, Fla. Stat. (1991).
. The petitioners in that case alleged that the proposed amendment to article VII, section 4 would trigger the "repealer" clause of article VII section 6, which the ballot title and summary did not mention. Therefore, the petitioners argued, the proposed amendment must be stricken from the ballot. We ultimately disagreed. See Florida League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So.2d 397, 401 (Fla.1992).
. We also reject appellants' argument that the amendment disparately affects voters in odd-numbered districts because senators serving in odd numbered districts will be denied the right to run for reelection in the year 2000, while senators currently serving in even-numbered districts, who are not be subject to reelection until 2002, will be allowed to serve until that time. This argument was not raised in the complaint below and was not considered by the trial court. We therefore do not address it in this case.