Title: Advisory Opinion to Attorney General Re: Adult Use of Marijuana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC19-2116
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2021

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-2116 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: ADULT 
USE OF MARIJUANA. 
 
April 22, 2021 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Attorney General of Florida has requested this Court’s 
opinion concerning 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.  As 
explained below, we strike the proposed amendment on the ground 
that the ballot summary is affirmatively misleading. 
BACKGROUND 
On December 19, 2019, the Attorney General petitioned this 
Court for an advisory opinion regarding the validity of an initiative 
petition sponsored by Make it Legal Florida (the Sponsor) and titled 
“Adult Use of Marijuana.”  The Attorney General asks whether the 
 
- 2 - 
proposed amendment complies with the single-subject requirement 
of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and whether the 
ballot title and summary comply with the clarity requirements of 
section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2020).  After we directed 
interested proponents and opponents to file briefs, the Attorney 
General submitted a brief opposing the initiative petition.  Opposing 
briefs were also submitted by: (1) the Florida Senate; (2) the Florida 
House of Representatives; (3) the Drug Free America Foundation, 
the Florida Coalition Alliance, National Families in Action, and 
Smart Approaches to Marijuana; and (4) the Florida Chamber of 
Commerce, Floridians Against Recreational Marijuana, Save Our 
Society from Drugs, and the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance.  
The Sponsor filed the lone brief in support of the initiative petition.  
Oral argument was held on May 6, 2020. 
Text of the Proposed Amendment 
The proposed amendment would add the following new section 
33 to article X of the Florida Constitution: 
Section 33.  Adult Use of Marijuana. 
(a)  Definitions.  As pertaining to this section  
(1)  “Adult” means a person 21 years of age or older. 
(2)  “Department” means the Florida Department of 
Health or its successor agency. 
 
- 3 - 
(3)  “Marijuana” shall have the same meaning as defined 
in Article X, Section 29. 
(4)  “Marijuana accessories” means any equipment, 
products, or materials of any kind which are for 
ingesting, inhaling, topically applying, or otherwise 
introducing marijuana into the human body. 
(5)  “Medical Marijuana Treatment Center” shall have the 
same meaning as defined in Article X, Section 29, except 
a licensed Medical Marijuana Treatment Center is 
permitted to sell, distribute, or dispense marijuana to a 
person 21 years of age or older for personal use for any  
reason in compliance with this section. 
(6)  “Public place” means any public street, sidewalk, 
park, beach, or other public commons. 
(b)  Public policy. 
(1)  An adult is permitted to possess, use, display, 
purchase, or transport marijuana or marijuana 
accessories for personal use for any reason in compliance 
with this section and Department regulations and is not 
subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under 
Florida law. 
(2)  A Medical Marijuana Treatment Center is permitted 
to sell, distribute or dispense marijuana or marijuana 
accessories to an adult for personal use for any reason in 
compliance with this section and Department regulations 
and is not subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions 
under Florida law. 
(c)  Restrictions. 
(1)  An adult may possess, display, purchase, or 
transport up to two and a half ounces of marijuana for 
personal use for any reason. 
(2)  A Medical Marijuana Treatment Center that sells, 
distributes, or dispenses marijuana or marijuana 
accessories to an adult shall ensure any marijuana or 
marijuana accessories are clearly labeled and in 
childproof packaging. 
(3)  Marijuana or marijuana accessories shall not be 
advertised or marketed to target persons under the age of 
21. 
 
- 4 - 
(4)  Marijuana authorized by this section may not be 
used in any public place. 
(5)  The limitations set forth in Article X, Section 29(c)(4), 
(5), (6), and (8) shall apply to personal use of marijuana 
authorized by this section. 
(d)  Authority. 
(1)  The Department shall issue reasonable regulations 
necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this 
section. 
(2)  Nothing in this section shall limit the legislature from 
enacting laws consistent with this section. 
(e)  Severability.  The provisions of this section are 
severable and if any clause, sentence, paragraph, or 
section of this measure, or an application thereof, is 
adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, 
other provisions shall continue to be in effect to the 
fullest extent possible. 
 
Ballot Title and Summary 
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is: “Adult Use of 
Marijuana.”  The ballot summary states: 
Permits adults 21 years or older to possess, use, 
purchase, display, and transport up to 2.5 ounces of 
marijuana and marijuana accessories for personal use 
for any reason.  Permits Medical Marijuana Treatment 
Centers to sell, distribute, or dispense marijuana and 
marijuana accessories if clearly labeled and in childproof 
packaging to adults.  Prohibits advertising or marketing 
targeted to persons under 21.  Prohibits marijuana use in 
defined public places.  Maintains limitations on 
marijuana use in defined circumstances. 
 
 
- 5 - 
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, 
132 So. 3d 786, 794 (Fla. 2014) (Medical Marijuana I).  Prior to the 
enactment of chapter 2020-15, Laws of Florida, this Court 
repeatedly recognized that our inquiry is limited “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). 
 
- 6 - 
 
We conclude that the initiative petition is “clearly and 
conclusively defective,” id., on the ground that the ballot summary 
fails to comply with section 101.161.1 
Section 101.161 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2020), provides that 
“[t]he 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 statute further 
requires that the ballot title “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 
 
 
1.  Because of our invalidation of the initiative on this ground, 
we need not address arguments presented concerning the scope 
and application of chapter 2020-15, Laws of Florida, which among 
other things amends existing statutes to (1) heighten the signature 
requirements before an initiative petition is eligible for this Court’s 
review, and (2) expand the scope of this Court’s review to include 
whether an initiative petition is facially invalid under the United 
States Constitution.  Ch. 2020-15, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. 
 
- 7 - 
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 Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 
1998)). 
In determining whether a ballot title and summary comply 
with section 101.161, 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.  “[A]n accurate, objective, 
and neutral summary of the proposed amendment is the sine qua 
non of the citizen-driven process of amending our constitution.”  
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Indep. Nonpartisan Comm’n to 
Apportion Legislative & Cong. Districts Which Replaces 
Apportionment by Legislature, 926 So. 2d 1218, 1227 (Fla. 2006) 
(quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Additional Homestead Tax 
Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 653-54 (Fla. 2004)). 
 
- 8 - 
 
Here, the opponents of the proposed amendment offer various 
arguments for why the ballot summary is defective.  Their primary 
argument—the only one we address—focuses on the first clause of 
the summary: “Permits adults 21 years or older to possess, use, 
purchase, display, and transport up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and 
marijuana accessories for personal use for any reason.”  They note 
that the proposed amendment itself states that it would only 
remove criminal and civil liability for the identified conduct “under 
Florida law.”  They thus argue that the summary’s unqualified use 
of the word “[p]ermits” affirmatively misleads voters into believing 
that the recreational use of marijuana in Florida will be free of any 
repercussions, criminal or otherwise.  We agree. 
“Permits” Marijuana Use 
 
There is no dispute here that the activities contemplated by 
the proposed amendment are criminal offenses under federal law.  
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (the federal Controlled Substances Act).  
There is also no dispute that the proposed amendment states that 
the contemplated activities will only be free of “criminal or civil 
liability or sanctions under Florida law.”  And there is further no 
dispute that the ballot summary unqualifiedly informs voters that 
 
- 9 - 
the amendment “[p]ermits” the contemplated activities.  Although 
this Court once stated that it has “never required that a ballot 
summary inform voters as to the current state of federal law and 
the impact of a proposed state constitutional amendment on federal 
statutory law as it exists at this moment in time,” Medical 
Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808, we have certainly never concluded—
or suggested—that a summary may affirmatively “mislead voters 
regarding the interplay between the proposed amendment and 
federal law,” id.  The summary here does precisely that. 
 
The summary’s unqualified use of the word “[p]ermits” 
strongly suggests that the conduct to be authorized by the 
amendment will be free of any criminal or civil penalty in Florida.  
See The American Heritage Dictionary 1315 (5th ed. 2011) (defining 
the verb “permit” as “[t]o grant consent or leave to (someone); 
authorize”; and as “[t]o allow the doing of (something); consent to”).  
The proposed amendment, on the other hand, explains that the 
conduct will only be free of criminal or civil liability “under Florida 
law.”  The proposed amendment includes that language, of course, 
because a recreational marijuana user or distributor will remain 
exposed to potential prosecution under federal law—no small 
 
- 10 - 
matter.  A constitutional amendment cannot unequivocally “permit” 
or authorize conduct that is criminalized under federal law.  And a 
ballot summary suggesting otherwise is affirmatively misleading. 
 
To put our decision into context, we review the two previous 
times marijuana-related initiative petitions came before this Court.  
Both times this Court approved the proposed amendment for 
placement on the ballot, the first time by way of a 4-3 decision and 
the second time unanimously.  Here, the Sponsor—for whatever 
reason—took a far more problematic approach to the ballot 
summary than did the sponsors in the two earlier cases. 
 
In Medical Marijuana I, this Court reviewed the validity of an 
initiative petition that sought to allow the use of medical marijuana 
for patients with certain medical conditions.  132 So. 3d at 791.  
The text of the proposed amendment stated that “[t]he medical use 
of marijuana . . . is not subject to criminal or civil liability or 
sanctions under Florida law except as provided in this section.”  Id.  
It further provided that “[n]othing in this law section [sic] requires 
the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under 
federal law.”  Id. at 793.  The ballot summary then explained that 
the amendment “[a]llow[ed] the medical use of marijuana for 
 
- 11 - 
individuals with debilitating diseases” but “[a]pplie[d] only to Florida 
law.”  Id. at 794.  The ballot summary additionally disclosed that 
the amendment “[did] not authorize violations of federal law.”  Id.  
Opponents of the initiative petition argued in relevant part that the 
ballot summary was defective for “mislead[ing] voters regarding the 
interplay between the proposed amendment and federal law.”  Id. at 
808.  And they argued “that the ballot summary should include 
language informing the voters that marijuana possession and use is 
currently prohibited under federal law.”  Id.  This Court’s majority 
disagreed.  Id.  In rejecting the opponents’ arguments—as well as 
arguments advanced by two of the three dissenting justices that the 
summary affirmatively misled the voters regarding federal law—the 
majority concluded that “the statements in the ballot summary 
[were] substantially similar in meaning to the proposed 
amendment’s text” and that the opponents were improperly 
“asserting that the ballot summary should include language that 
[was] not in the proposed amendment itself.”  Id.  The majority also 
noted that this Court had “never required that a ballot summary 
inform voters as to the current state of federal law and the impact of 
a proposed state constitutional amendment on federal statutory law 
 
- 12 - 
as it exists at this moment in time,” id., while concluding that “the 
ballot summary’s discussion of federal law [was] not ‘so misleading 
as to clearly and conclusively violate section 101.161,’ ” id. (quoting 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative 
District Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 187 (Fla. 2009)). 
 
The proposed amendment in Medical Marijuana I was 
ultimately not adopted by the voters.  The following year, a similar 
initiative petition qualified for this Court’s review.  See Advisory Op. 
to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 
181 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2015) (Medical Marijuana II).  There, the text of 
the proposed amendment provided—as in Medical Marijuana I—that 
the medical use of marijuana under certain circumstances would 
“not [be] subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under 
Florida law.”  Id. at 473.  It further provided—as in Medical 
Marijuana I—that “[n]othing in this section requires the violation of 
federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law.”  Id. at 
475.  The ballot summary then provided—as in Medical Marijuana 
I—that the amendment “[a]pplie[d] only to Florida law.”  Id. at 476.  
But the ballot summary further provided—in clearer language than 
in Medical Marijuana I—that the amendment “[did] not immunize 
 
- 13 - 
violations of federal law.”  Id.  This Court unanimously approved the 
initiative petition for placement on the ballot, id. at 479, concluding 
that among other things “the ballot title and summary fairly 
inform[ed] voters of the purpose of the proposed amendment—the 
state authorization of medical marijuana for patients with 
debilitating medical conditions,” id. at 478.  The amendment was 
ultimately approved by the voters and added article X, section 29 to 
the Florida Constitution. 
 
Here, instead of following the roadmap this Court 
unanimously approved in Medical Marijuana II, the Sponsor chose a 
path that diverges even from the majority’s reasoning in Medical 
Marijuana I.  That is, although the text of the proposed amendment 
states it would only remove criminal and civil sanctions for the 
identified conduct “under Florida law,” the ballot summary omits 
this limiting language and affirmatively misleads voters by 
suggesting that the identified conduct will be “[p]ermit[ted]” without 
qualification.  This we cannot approve.2 
 
 
2.  The dissenting opinion discusses reliance interests and yet 
does not address our discussion of Medical Marijuana I and Medical 
Marijuana II.  Again, in both cases, the sponsor handled a nearly 
identical issue as presented here by unsurprisingly addressing that 
 
- 14 - 
 
The Sponsor offers various reasons why we should reject 
striking the proposed amendment on this ground.  We are not 
persuaded by any of these arguments.  Indeed, the arguments 
largely sidestep the relevant issue. 
 
First, the Sponsor relies on Advisory Opinion to Attorney 
General—Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 
2d 225 (Fla. 1991).  There, we reviewed an initiative petition that 
purported to impose term limits on certain elective offices, including 
federal legislators from Florida.  Id. at 226.  Opponents of the 
measure argued “that the limitation on the terms of federal 
legislators violate[d] the Supremacy Clause of the United States 
Constitution.”  Id. at 227 n.2.  This Court declined to consider that 
constitutional challenge, reasoning that its review of the initiative 
petition was “limited . . . to addressing whether the proposed 
 
important issue both in the proposed amendment itself and in the 
ballot summary.  And both times this Court approved the petition.  
Given this “precedent,” dissenting op. at 27, we submit that it is the 
dissenting opinion’s atmospheric-science analogy—and not our 
decision here—that is unsound.  That is, rather than analogizing 
this case to a professor failing a student who followed “the test 
instructions,” dissenting op. at 22, the better analogy would be to a 
professor failing a student who chose an incorrect answer after 
twice being shown the correct answer. 
 
- 15 - 
amendment and ballot title and summary compl[ied] with article XI, 
section 3, Florida Constitution and section 101.161, Florida 
Statutes.”  Id. at 227.  Because those constitutional and statutory 
requirements had been satisfied, this Court approved the proposed 
amendment for placement on the ballot.  Id. at 229. 
 
The Sponsor argues that Limited Political Terms makes clear 
“that a conflict between current federal law and a proposed 
amendment is not justiciable” in the context of this Court’s review 
of an initiative petition.  According to the Sponsor, “the ballot 
summary’s silence regarding federal law is therefore irrelevant.”  
But that reasoning is lacking.  The issue here, of course, is not 
whether the proposed amendment is unconstitutional as 
inconsistent with federal law.  Rather, the issue is whether the 
ballot summary affirmatively misrepresents that inconsistency.  It 
does.  Limited Political Terms has no relevance here. 
The Sponsor next looks to the majority’s statement in Medical 
Marijuana I that this Court had “never required that a ballot 
summary inform voters as to the current state of federal law and 
the impact of a proposed state constitutional amendment on federal 
statutory law as it exists at this moment in time.”  Medical 
 
- 16 - 
Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808.  The Sponsor opines that even the 
dissenting justices in that case agreed there was no such 
requirement and that the issue dividing the Court was the perceived 
accuracy of the summary’s representation of the amendment’s 
relationship to federal law.  The Sponsor contends that because the 
summary here is silent as to the amendment’s effect on federal law, 
there is no possibility voters could be left with the mistaken belief 
that the amendment is consistent with federal law.  According to 
the Sponsor, the opponents’ arguments amount to nothing more 
than incorrect assertions that the summary is required to describe 
the amendment’s relationship to federal law or include information 
that is not contained within the amendment. 
 
The Sponsor’s reliance on Medical Marijuana I similarly misses 
the point.  The narrow issue is not whether the ballot summary is 
defective for failing to explain that marijuana use is currently 
prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act.  Rather, the issue is 
whether the summary’s unqualified language is affirmatively 
 
- 17 - 
misleading.  Again, it is.3  Because the summary affirmatively 
conceals the possibility that an individual could be prosecuted for 
conduct that the amendment purports to “[p]ermit[]” or authorize, 
the summary is “clearly and conclusively defective.”  Race in Pub. 
Educ., 778 So. 2d at 891.  Moreover, the opponents here are not 
arguing that “the ballot summary should include language that is 
not in the proposed amendment itself.”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 
So. 3d at 808.  Quite the opposite.  Here, the ballot summary omits 
important language that is found “in the proposed amendment 
itself.”  Id.  And the ballot summary does so even though—not 
surprisingly—similarly important language was included in the 
ballot summaries in both previous medical marijuana cases.  See 
Medical Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 476 (ballot summary stated that 
the amendment “[a]pplie[d] only to Florida law” and “[did] not 
immunize violations of federal law”); Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d 
at 794 (ballot summary stated that the amendment “[a]pplie[d] only 
to Florida law” and “[did] not authorize violations of federal law”). 
 
 
3.  The dissenting opinion similarly misses the point by 
wrongly asserting that we “condemn[] . . . this summary for not 
explaining federal law.”  Dissenting op. at 34. 
 
- 18 - 
 
The Sponsor next reasons that because “[t]his Court 
presumes . . . the average voter has a certain amount of common 
understanding and knowledge,” Fla. Educ. Ass’n v. Fla. Dep’t of 
State, 48 So. 3d 694, 701 (Fla. 2010), there is no need for the ballot 
summary to state that the amendment affects only Florida law.  The 
Sponsor continues that it is an elementary principle of civics that 
federal law cannot be changed through a state constitution.  We 
reject this line of reasoning.  The taint of an affirmatively misleading 
statement in a ballot summary is not removed simply because some 
voters will wisely question the accuracy of the statement.  The point 
is that a summary should not contain language that is affirmatively 
misleading and creates a risk that voters will be confused. 
 
The Sponsor lastly argues that it is unnecessary to inform 
voters that the amendment would only apply to Florida law because 
“[t]his will be the third petition initiative in six years to address the 
possession and use of marijuana” in Florida.  The Sponsor thus 
contends that voters should be presumed to be knowledgeable 
about prohibitions on marijuana, “especially when they have voted 
on similar amendments in two out of the last three elections cycles.”  
But even assuming this is a proper consideration in our review, the 
 
- 19 - 
Sponsor’s logic is self-defeating.  Among other things, the Sponsor 
overlooks that the ballot summaries in the two previous cases each 
made voters aware of the inconsistency between Florida law and 
federal law.  See Medical Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 476; Medical 
Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 794.  The fact that the summary here 
now makes no mention of that inconsistency could easily suggest to 
voters—misleadingly, to be sure—that there have been intervening 
changes to federal law since Medical Marijuana II.  The Sponsor’s 
argument is without merit. 
CONCLUSION 
 
We conclude that the language in the ballot summary 
indicating that the proposed amendment unqualifiedly “[p]ermits” 
the use (and distribution) of recreational marijuana is affirmatively 
misleading.  Because the proposed amendment fails to comply with 
section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, we strike the proposed 
amendment. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and 
GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents. 
LAWSON, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
 
- 20 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LAWSON, J., dissenting. 
 
The majority views the ballot summary for this proposed 
constitutional amendment as misleading even though it accurately 
summarizes changes to the Florida Constitution that would result 
upon passage of the amendment.  They assert that the summary 
misleads when it states that the amendment would generally 
“permit” the adult use of marijuana—which is accurate and not 
misleading as to the change in Florida law that would be brought 
about by passage of the amendment, but which would be 
misleading to any voter who thought that his or her vote could 
change federal statutory law or, more specifically, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-
904 (the federal Controlled Substances Act) “[pursuant to which] 
the activities contemplated by the proposed amendment are 
[currently] criminal offenses under federal law.”  Majority op. at 8.  
Because the majority’s reasoning and conclusion are logically 
irreconcilable with this Court’s precedent, I respectfully dissent.  I 
would follow our precedent and approve the proposed amendment 
for placement on the ballot. 
 
- 21 - 
I. 
Summary of Core Analysis 
 
Our precedent correctly states that a ballot summary must 
simply and accurately summarize the change in Florida law that 
would occur if a proposed amendment is adopted.  This implies—
and we have expressly held—that the summary need not address 
secondary issues or ramifications, including federal law.  See 
Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. 
Conditions (Medical Marijuana I), 132 So. 3d 786, 808 (Fla. 2014) 
(“This Court has . . . never required that a ballot summary inform 
voters as to the current state of federal law [or] the impact of a 
proposed state constitutional amendment on federal statutory law . 
. . .”). 
 
The fallacy in the majority’s conclusion that this summary 
misleads as to federal law when accurately explaining the Florida 
law change proposed in the amendment is most easily illustrated by 
analogy.  If, for example, you and I were instructed on a one-
question final exam to summarize the predominant compounds 
present in the earth’s atmosphere and answered that the earth’s 
atmosphere is predominantly comprised of nitrogen (approximately 
78%) and oxygen (approximately 21%), our summary should be 
 
- 22 - 
viewed as correct because the rest of the gases combined account 
for only about 1% of the earth’s atmosphere.  UCAR Center for 
Science Education, https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/earths-
atmosphere (last visited Apr. 15, 2021).  We would be quite upset, 
and rightfully so, if we were told by our professor that we had failed 
the exam because our answer was misleading in that it did not 
explain that the sun’s atmosphere is different.4  Our justifiable 
confusion would be even more profound if the test instructions had 
plainly stated that our summary need not list predominant 
compounds in the sun’s atmosphere and need not explain 
differences between the earth’s atmosphere and the sun’s. 
 
There is no logical difference between my hypothetical 
professor’s illogical explanation for an unjustifiable failing grade 
and the majority’s explanation for “strik[ing] the proposed 
amendment on the ground that the ballot summary is affirmatively 
misleading.”  Majority op. at 1. 
 
4.  Our sun’s atmosphere is predominantly comprised of 
hydrogen (75%) and helium (24%).  Katharina Lodders, Solar 
System Abundances and Condensation Temperatures of the 
Elements, 591 The Astrophysical J. 1220, 1220 (2003) (rounded 
number to the second significant figure). 
 
- 23 - 
II. 
Governing Precedent 
A. The Right of Self-Governance and Expectation of Non- 
Ignorance 
 
Florida citizens have the right “to formulate ‘their own organic 
law.’ ”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d 786, 794 (quoting Advisory 
Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug 
Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 494 (Fla. 2002)).  To avoid undue 
interference with this right, we have “traditionally applied a 
deferential standard of review to the validity of a citizen initiative 
petition.”  Id.  Our restraint in this area is longstanding: 
There is no lawful reason why the electors of this 
State should not have the right to determine the 
manner in which the Constitution may be amended. 
. . .  Sovereignty resides in the people and the 
electors have a right to approve or reject a proposed 
amendment to the organic law of th[e] State, limited 
only by those instances where there is an entire 
failure to comply with a plain and essential 
requirement of [the law]. 
 
Id. at 795 (second alteration in original) (quoting Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug 
Offenses, 818 So. 2d at 494 (quoting Pope v. Gray, 104 So. 2d 841, 
842 (Fla. 1958))). 
 
- 24 - 
Consistent with these principles, we take a nonpaternalistic 
approach to our review, expecting voters to educate themselves 
regarding the details of a proposed amendment before voting and 
advising that the ballot summary need not educate voters on 
collateral implications of a proposed amendment’s effects: 
Under our system of free elections, the voter must 
acquaint himself with the details of a proposed ordinance 
on a referendum together with the pros and cons thereon 
before he enters the voting booth.  If he does not, it is no 
function of the ballot question to provide him with that 
needed education.  What the law very simply requires is 
that the ballot give the voter fair notice of the question he 
must decide so that he may intelligently cast his vote. 
 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative 
Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 185 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Right to 
Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d at 
498). 
Our review similarly presumes that voters possess a 
rudimentary knowledge of their government’s structure and of the 
laws governing their conduct.  Fla. Educ. Ass’n v. Fla. Dep’t of State, 
48 So. 3d 694, 701 (Fla. 2010) (“This Court presumes that the 
average voter has a certain amount of common understanding and 
knowledge.”); Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 
 
- 25 - 
2d 360, 375 (Fla. 2005) (Cantero, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part) (“All citizens are presumed to know the law.”) 
(quoting Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). 
Citizens are also presumed to know what constitutes a federal 
crime.  See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957) (“The 
rule that ‘ignorance of the law will not excuse’ is deep in our law . . . 
.” (quoting Shelvin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57, 68 
(1910))). 
Finally, it is one of the most fundamental and elementary 
principles of our constitutional republic that no state law—not even 
a state constitution—can override federal law.  See U.S. Const., art. 
VI, cl. 2. 
B. Ballot Summary 
 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2019), requires that each 
ballot summary5 be written in “clear and unambiguous language” 
 
5.  Although the title and summary “must be read together in 
determining whether the ballot information properly informs the 
voters,” Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re All Voters Vote in Primary 
Elections for State Legislature, Governor, & Cabinet, 291 So. 3d 901, 
906 (Fla. 2020) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voluntary 
Univ. Pre-Kindergarten Educ., 824 So. 2d 161, 166 (Fla. 2002)), I will 
focus on the summary because that is where the language is found 
that the majority judges to be misleading. 
 
- 26 - 
and provide “an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in 
length, of the chief purpose of the measure.”  Id. (emphasis added).  
In plain language, this statute imposes a straightforward legal 
requirement that the summary unambiguously and succinctly 
explain the primary legal change to the Florida Constitution that the 
amendment would bring about—and thereby “provide fair notice of 
the content of the proposed amendment.”  All Voters Vote, 291 So. 
3d at 906 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to 
Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1998)).  
The point here is that the statute’s directive is solely to explain the 
Florida constitutional change—with no requirement that the 
summary provide an explanation of secondary ramifications of the 
proposed amendment.  See id. (explaining that the statute does not 
require an explanation of “possible ramifications” of an 
amendment).  Accordingly, we have “never required that a ballot 
summary inform voters as to the current state of federal law [or] the 
impact of a proposed state constitutional amendment on federal 
statutory law.”  Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808. 
 
We also properly consider “whether the language of the title 
and summary, as written, misleads the public.”  Fla. Educ. Ass’n v. 
 
- 27 - 
Fla. Dep’t of State, 48 So. 3d 694, 701 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Fla. Dep’t 
of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142, 147 (Fla. 2008)).  This aspect of 
our review necessarily flows from the language of section 
101.161(1), requiring that the ballot summary in “clear and 
unambiguous” language explain the chief purpose of the proposal.  
We have properly read this language as including an “accuracy” 
requirement—stating that the substance of the proposal must be 
“accurately represented on the ballot.”  Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 
2d 7, 12 (Fla. 2000) (emphasis omitted).  Therefore, the proponents 
of the measure cannot use the summary to disguise the measure 
“as something else.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 
1982).  Stated another way, “[a] ballot title and summary cannot 
either ‘fly under false colors’ or ‘hide the ball’ as to the amendment’s 
true effect.”  Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 16.  In lay terms, the statute 
supports an inquiry into whether the summary would inadvertently 
trick the voter as to how Florida law would change if the 
amendment passes.  Id. 
C. Stare Decisis 
The doctrine of stare decisis requires us to follow the 
precedent outlined above unless “we are convinced that [it] clearly 
 
- 28 - 
conflicts with the law we are sworn to uphold.”  State v. Poole, 297 
So. 3d 487, 507 (Fla. 2020).  Even clearly erroneous precedent 
should be maintained and followed based upon citizens’ reliance on 
that precedent in conducting their affairs.  Id. 
Here, reliance interests are at their zenith because citizens rely 
heavily (if not exclusively) on our precedent when seeking to amend 
their constitution.  Citizens draft the proposal knowing that it will 
never make the ballot unless we judge their language to be 
compliant with section 101.161(1).  They then expend significant 
resources to obtain the signatures necessary to trigger our review, 
with no opportunity to redraft the proposal if we find it deficient.  
Rather, if their original work product is deemed defective, the 
citizenry must start again with a new proposal for a later election 
cycle, at least two years in the future.  They must then redraft a 
new summary and restart the expensive signature-gathering 
process.  These practicalities, and the core right of self-governance 
they relate to, clearly militate in favor of following the doctrine of 
stare decisis in the citizen-initiative context, see Poole, 297 So. 3d 
at 507 (identifying reliance as a “critical consideration” in 
determining whether to adhere to precedent), and underscore why it 
 
- 29 - 
is of paramount importance that we faithfully, consistently, and 
impartially apply our precedent in this area, irrespective of our 
personal views as to “the merits or wisdom of the proposed 
amendment,” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Repeal of High Speed Rail 
Amendment, 880 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2004).  Our precedent 
therefore appropriately dictates that we must “act with extreme 
care, caution, and restraint before [we] remove[ ] a constitutional 
amendment from the vote of the people,” Askew, 421 So. 2d at 156, 
and also appropriately instructs that “[t]his Court has no authority 
to inject itself in the process [by blocking a proposed amendment 
from appearing on the ballot], unless the laws governing the process 
have been clearly and conclusively violated,” Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 
818 So. 2d at 494, 498-99, thereby rendering the proposal “clearly 
and conclusively defective,” id at 494 (quoting Floridians Against 
Casino Takeover v. Let’s Help Florida, 363 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 
1978)). 
III. Analysis 
In oral argument, the Attorney General correctly acknowledged 
that the summary for this proposed constitutional amendment 
 
- 30 - 
fairly informs voters of the amendment’s chief purpose—to “permit” 
the adult use of marijuana, with limitations also fairly 
summarized—and that the summary is not misleading with respect 
to the changes in Florida law that would occur if the amendment is 
adopted.  The majority does not suggest otherwise.  The key point is 
this: the proposed amendment itself expressly states that certain 
actions are “permitted,” Majority op. at 2-4 (quoting proposed 
amendment), and the ballot summary says that the amendment 
“[p]ermits” those actions.  Majority op. at 4 (quoting ballot 
summary).  Given the precedent cited above, these observations 
should end our analysis in favor of approving the measure for 
placement on the ballot.  See, e.g., Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d 
at 808 (approving a ballot summary that contains statements 
“substantially similar in meaning to the proposed amendment’s 
text”). 
Yet, in an extraordinarily rare occurrence for this Court, we 
are declaring a summary to be misleading even though it accurately 
describes the effect of the amendment using the same operative 
 
- 31 - 
language as used in the amendment itself.6  The majority reasons 
that the summary is misleading because it fails to explain that 
adult use of marijuana is not permitted under federal law and that 
the proposed Florida constitutional law change would not alter the 
federal Controlled Substances Act—contrary to the bedrock 
principle that citizens are presumed to know what constitutes a 
federal crime, see Lambert, 355 U.S. at 228, and in direct violation 
of the deferential, nonpaternalistic rules and presumptions that 
have historically governed our decisions in this area.  See, e.g., 
Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d at 
185 (explaining that the law does not require the ballot summary to 
 
6.  In Detzner v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 256 So. 3d 
803, 809 (Fla. 2018), we condemned another ballot measure as 
misleading under similar circumstances.  Writing in dissent, Chief 
Justice Canady explained: 
 
The majority’s opinion thus repeatedly reveals that the 
summary is condemned not because it is misleading, but 
because of what the majority views as deficiencies in the 
proposed constitutional amendment itself.  This is a clear 
departure from the fundamental principle of our jurisprudence 
that in determining the adequacy of a ballot summary, we do 
not review the merits of the proposed constitutional 
amendment.  
 
Id. at 817. 
 
 
- 32 - 
provide voters with “needed education” regarding “the details of a 
proposed ordinance on a referendum together with the pros and 
cons thereon before [entering] the voting booth” (quoting Advisory 
Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug 
Offenses, 818 So. 2d at 498)); Fla. Educ. Ass’n v. Fla. Dep’t of State, 
48 So. 3d 694, 701 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that this “Court 
presumes that the average voter has a certain amount of common 
understanding and knowledge” regarding the structure and 
operation of their legal and governmental systems); Medical 
Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808 (explaining that we have “never 
required that a ballot summary inform voters as to the current state 
of federal law [or] the impact of a proposed state constitutional 
amendment on federal statutory law”). 
In Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from 
the Health Hazards of Second-Hand Smoke, 814 So. 2d 415, 419 
(Fla. 2002), we rejected as “contrary to rational analysis” an 
argument that voters would be misled by an accurate description of 
an amendment banning smoking in “indoor workplaces.”  
Opponents of the indoor workplace smoking ban amendment had 
argued that the ballot summary was misleading when it stated that 
 
- 33 - 
the measure would “prohibit tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor 
workplaces” without “indicat[ing] that smoking would be banned in 
places like restaurants, which many patrons visit for the sole 
purpose of relaxing.”  Id. at 418-19.  We unanimously dismissed the 
contention, explaining: “In our view, the argument that Florida 
citizens cannot understand that a restaurant may be a workplace is 
contrary to rational analysis.”  Id. at 419. 
The majority’s reasoning here is similarly “contrary to rational 
analysis,” id., by which I mean that it violates basic principles of 
logic.  This assertion obviously bears some explanation.  My 
challenge in giving this explanation is that although the law is 
supposed to be governed by “standards of rationality” reflected in 
the “basic principles of logic,” David Barker-Plummer et al., 
Language, Proof and Logic 1 (2d ed. 2011), we do not generally teach 
logic and rhetoric as part of our core curriculum, even in our law 
schools.  
Even without that education, however, most should be able to 
recognize the “non sequitur” in the majority’s analysis.  In Latin, non 
sequitur means “it does not follow.”  See Merriam-Webster, 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur 
 
- 34 - 
(last visited Apr. 15, 2021).  It should be intuitively obvious to most 
that the majority’s condemnation of this summary for not 
explaining federal law is logically irreconcilable with (i.e., does not 
logically “follow” from) our precedent stating that the summary need 
only explain the Florida constitutional change being proposed.  I 
believe that the analogy used in the summary of my position bears 
repeating. 
If you and I were asked on a one-question final exam to list the 
predominant compounds in the earth’s atmosphere and answered 
nitrogen and oxygen, our answer should be judged as correct 
because the question only related to the earth’s atmosphere which 
consists primarily of nitrogen (approximately 78%) and oxygen 
(approximately 21%), with the remaining 1% comprised of various 
other gases.  UCAR Center for Science Education, 
https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/earths-atmosphere (last 
visited Apr. 15, 2021).  We would be quite upset, and rightfully so, 
if we were told by our professor that we had failed the exam 
because our answer was inaccurate or misleading in that it did not 
explain that the sun’s atmosphere is very different, consisting 
primarily of hydrogen (75%) and helium (24%).  Katharina Lodders, 
 
- 35 - 
Solar System Abundance and Condensation Temperatures of the 
Elements, 591 The Astrophysical J. 1220, 1220 (2003) (rounded 
number to the second significant figure).  Although we would likely 
be unable to discuss the problem using terms or concepts familiar 
to those who have studied classical logic, we would certainly be 
confounded at the irrational explanation and might even recognize 
the explanation as a non sequitur.  See Merriam-Webster, 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur 
(last visited Apr. 15, 2021) (explaining that “we now use non 
sequitur for any kind of statement that seems to come out of the 
blue”).  Our justifiable confusion and anger would be even more 
profound if the test question itself had plainly stated that our 
answer need not list compounds predominant in the sun’s 
atmosphere and need not explain differences between the earth’s 
atmosphere and the sun’s. 
There is no logical difference between my hypothetical 
professor’s illogical explanation for an unjustifiable failing grade 
and the majority’s illogical conclusion that this ballot summary’s 
explanation of the proposed Florida constitutional change is 
misleading for failing to explain either (1) that the proposed changes 
 
- 36 - 
in Florida law would not change federal law, or (2) how Florida law 
would differ from the federal Controlled Substances Act (assuming 
that it is not changed) if the Florida ballot measure were to pass.  
The majority apparently justifies sidestepping our longstanding 
precedent in this area on grounds that the sponsors were “twice . . . 
shown the correct” way to address federal law differences in Medical 
Marijuana I and Medical Marijuana II.  Majority op. at 13-14, note 2.  
Neither case comes close to holding that federal law implications 
must be addressed for a summary to comply with the constitutional 
and statutory standards by which we are to judge the language.  To 
the contrary, and as already addressed, Medical Marijuana I 
expressly states the opposite: that the summary did not need to 
address or disclose “the current state of federal [controlled 
substances] law” when explaining the chief purpose of an 
amendment that was inconsistent with federal law when drafted.  
Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808. 
Finally, there is the practical matter of not knowing how 
federal law will change in the years between the drafting of any 
ballot summary and a vote on the amendment.  This is especially 
 
- 37 - 
the case when dealing with a matter like the legalization of 
marijuana in a federal political landscape that is ever-changing.7  
IV. 
Conclusion 
 
Today’s decision underestimates Florida voters and adds 
hurdles to the citizen-initiative process that are not supported by 
the plain language of the governing law or our precedent.  Because 
the ballot summary in this case complies with the constitutional 
and statutory requirements by which we are to judge ballot 
summaries, I would apply our precedent and approve this measure 
for placement on the ballot. 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General 
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, 
James Percival, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Jeffrey Paul 
DeSousa, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
Ashley Hoffman Lukis and George T. Levesque of GrayRobinson, 
P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Interested Party, Make It Legal, Florida 
 
7.  In a 2020 vote that mostly remained along party lines, the 
U.S. House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Opportunity 
Reinvestment and Expungement Act to decriminalize marijuana on 
the federal level.  H.R. 3884, 116th Cong. (as passed by House of 
Representatives, Dec. 4, 2020). 
 
- 38 - 
Daniel W. Bell, General Counsel, and J. Michael Maida, Deputy 
General Counsel, Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Interested Party, Florida House of Representatives 
 
Jeremy D. Bailie of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, 
Florida, 
 
for Interested Parties, Drug Free America Foundation, Florida 
Coalition Alliance, National Families in Action, and Smart 
Approaches to Marijuana 
 
Jeremiah Hawkes, General Counsel, and Ashley Urban, Deputy 
General Counsel, The Florida Senate, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Interested Party, The Florida Senate, and Bill Galvano, in 
his official capacity as President of the Florida Senate 
 
Jason Gonzalez, Daniel Nordby, Benjamin Gibson, Amber Stoner 
Nunnally, and Rachel Procaccini, Tallahassee, Florida, and Julissa 
Rodriguez of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, Florida, 
 
for Interested Parties, Florida Chamber of Commerce, 
Floridians Against Recreational Marijuana, Save Our Society 
From Drugs and National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance