Title: Advisory Opinion To The Attorney General Re: Prohibiting State Spending For Experimentation That Involves The Destruction Of A Live Human Embryo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC06-2286
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2007

________________________ 
________________________ 
Supreme Court of Florida  
Nos. SC06-2286 & SC07-54 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE:  
PROHIBITING STATE SPENDING FOR EXPERIMENTATION THAT  
INVOLVES THE DESTRUCTION OF A LIVE HUMAN EMBRYO.  
[May 31, 2007] 
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, including the corresponding financial impact statement.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.  For the reasons 
expressed below, we approve the amendment, ballot title and summary, and the 
financial impact statement for placement on the ballot.   
I. FACTS 
On November 9, 2006, the Attorney General received a ballot initiative from 
the Secretary of State seeking to amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit state 
funding of research that destroys a live human embryo.  This amendment is 
sponsored by Citizens for Science and Ethics, Inc.1  The full text of the proposed 
amendment reads as follows: 
Be it enacted by the people of Florida that a new section for Article X 
of the Constitution is created to add the following: 
No revenue of the state shall be spent on experimentation that 
involves the destruction of a live human embryo. 
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is “Prohibiting State Spending 
For Experimentation That Involves The Destruction of a Live Human Embryo.” 
The summary for the proposed amendment states: “No revenue of the state shall be 
spent on experimentation that involves the destruction of a live human embryo.” 
The Financial Impact Statement for this proposed amendment, as prepared 
by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, provides as follows: “This 
amendment is not expected to have an impact on state or local government 
expenses.” 
II. GOVERNING LAW 
The citizen ballot initiative process is recognized in the Florida constitution: 
The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion 
or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, 
provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those 
limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but 
one subject and matter directly connected therewith.  
Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. 
1.  No briefs were filed in opposition to this proposed amendment. 
- 2 -
The process begins when the sponsoring party files a petition and a copy of 
the proposed amendment with the custodian of state records, the Secretary of State.  
Id.  Accompanying this petition are signatures collected from electors across the 
state.  Id.  Once the Secretary of State verifies that the threshold number of valid 
signatures has been reached, notice of the initiative is sent to the Attorney General, 
who then must request an advisory opinion from this Court.  Art. IV, § 10, Fla. 
Const.; § 16.061, Fla. Stat. (2006).  The advisory opinion is to address the ballot 
initiative’s compliance with article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which 
requires that an amendment by ballot touch upon “one subject and matter directly 
connected therewith.”  Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const. 
Through prior case law and advisory opinions, this Court has explained its 
standard of review as follows: 
The Court's inquiry, when determining the validity of initiative 
petitions, is limited to two legal issues: whether the petition satisfies 
the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida 
Constitution, and whether the ballot titles and summaries are printed 
in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161, 
Florida Statutes (1999). 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People 
Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 2000) (citing 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care 
Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1998); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re 
- 3 -
Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 974 
(Fla. 1997)). 
When reviewing a proposed amendment to determine compliance with the 
single subject and ballot summary requirements, this Court has stated that it will 
“not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment.”  Advisory Op. to 
the Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 
2006) (citing Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People Differently Based on 
Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d at 891). Additionally: 
[W]e have recognized that we “must act with extreme care, caution, 
and restraint before [we] remove[] a constitutional amendment from 
the vote of the people.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 
1982).  In elaborating on this latter principle, we have noted that “the 
Court has no authority to inject itself in the process, unless the laws 
governing the process have been ‘clearly and conclusively’ violated.” 
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Right to Treatment & 
Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 498-99 (Fla. 
2002).  It is within the framework of these fundamental principles that 
we review . . . proposed amendment[s] and ballot language. 
Fla. Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1233 (second and third alterations 
in original). 
A.  Single-Subject Rule 
The single-subject requirement has two components: “(1) it prevents 
‘logrolling,’ a practice that combines separate issues into a single proposal to 
secure passage of an unpopular issue; and (2) it ‘prevent[s] a single constitutional 
amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple 
- 4 -
aspects of government.’ ”  Id. (quoting Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re the Med. 
Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amendment, 880 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 2004)).  To 
comply with the single-subject requirement, “[a] proposed amendment must 
manifest a ‘logical and natural oneness of purpose’ in order to satisfy the single-
subject requirement.”  Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amendment, 880 So. 2d at 
677 (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984)). “This 
determination requires the Court to consider whether the proposed amendment 
affects separate functions of government, as well as how it affects other provisions 
of the constitution.” Id. (citing In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen.––Restricts 
Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1994)). 
1.  Logrolling 
Logrolling occurs when “several separate issues are rolled into a single 
initiative in order to aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular 
issue.”  In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.––Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 1336, 
1339 (Fla. 1994).  Thus, part of the goal of this Court’s single-subject scrutiny is to 
“avoid voters having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose in order to 
obtain a change which they support.”  Fine, 448 So. 2d at 993.  The Court uses a 
“oneness of purpose” standard, which looks at whether a proposed amendment 
“may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as 
component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.  Unity of object 
- 5 -
and plan is the universal test.”  Id. at 990 (quoting City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 19 
So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 1944)). 
We find that the proposed amendment only addresses one subject, the 
prohibition of the state funding of experimentation that involves the destruction of 
a live human embryo.  It does not reach any other subject and does not constitute 
logrolling. 
2.  Altering or Performing the Functions of Multiple Branches of Government 
A single-subject violation can also occur when a proposed amendment 
“alters or performs the functions of multiple branches of government.”  Fla. 
Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1235.  We have clarified that “[a] 
proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail; 
rather, it is when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of 
multiple branches that it violates the single-subject test.”  Advisory Op. to the 
Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 
(Fla. 1998) (emphasis added) (citing Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1340).  
This Court has also repeatedly emphasized that the rationale of the single-subject 
restriction in general is to guard against “precipitous” or “cataclysmic” changes to 
the government structure.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Atty Gen. re Additional 
Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 650 (Fla. 2000). 
- 6 -
While we recognize that the proposed amendment, if enacted, appears to 
limit the authority of the legislative and executive branches of state government, 
we conclude that this proposed amendment does not substantially alter or perform 
the functions of multiple branches of government.  Accordingly, since it also does 
not logroll any issues, we find no violation of the single-subject rule. 
B.  Ballot Title and Summary 
The title and ballot summary of any proposed amendment must comply with 
section 101.161, Florida Statutes, which states: 
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is 
submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment 
or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous 
language on the ballot . . . followed by the word “yes” and also by the 
word “no,” . . . .  Except for amendments and ballot language 
proposed by joint resolution, the substance of the amendment . . . shall 
be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the 
chief purpose of the measure. . . .  The ballot title shall consist of a 
caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is 
commonly referred to or spoken of. 
§101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). 
The “clear and unambiguous” requirement ensures that a voter has notice of 
the subject matter and issues addressed by the proposed amendment.  See Fla. 
Marriage Prot. Amendment, 926 So. 2d at 1236 (quoting Save Our Everglades, 636 
So. 2d at 1341).  In evaluating a proposed amendment: 
The proper analysis to assess whether [the] ballot title and summary 
meet this requirement focuses on two questions: (1) whether the ballot 
title and summary, in clear and unambiguous language, fairly inform 
- 7 -
the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2) whether the 
language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public. 
Id. at 1236 (citing Additional Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d at 651-52. 
The ballot title and summary do not have to discuss every detail or consequence of 
the amendment, but they must be sufficiently “accurate and informative.”  
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Protect People From Health Hazards of Using 
Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1194 (Fla. 2000). 
The summary and the proposed constitutional amendment are identical and 
provide as follows: “No revenue of the state shall be spent on experimentation that 
involves the destruction of a live human embryo.”  The ballot title is nearly 
identical and reads, “Prohibiting state spending for experimentation that involves 
the destruction of a live human embryo.” Accordingly, both prongs of the 
summary analysis are easily satisfied since the entire amendment also serves as the 
summary to be placed on the ballot.  We find no basis to reject the proposed 
summary and ballot title under section 101.161, Florida Statutes. 
C. Financial Impact Statement 
This Court must also determine whether the financial impact statement 
complies with the requirements provided in the Florida Constitution and the 
statute.  Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, addresses financial impact 
statements and provides in relevant part: 
- 8 -
(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the 
holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a 
statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any 
amendment proposed by the initiative pursuant to section 3. 
Section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2006), now addresses the financial impact 
statement as follows: 
(5)(a) Within 45 days after receipt of a proposed revision or 
amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the 
Secretary of State, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall 
complete an analysis and financial impact statement to be placed on 
the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or 
costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed 
initiative.  The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall submit 
the financial impact statement to the Attorney General and Secretary 
of State. 
. . . . 
(b)3.  Principals of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference 
shall reach a consensus or majority concurrence on a clear and 
unambiguous financial impact statement, no more than 75 words in 
length, and immediately submit the statement to the Attorney General. 
Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Financial Impact Estimating 
Conference from setting forth a range of potential impacts in the 
financial impact statement. 
§ 100.371(5), Fla. Stat. (2006).  In deciding the validity of a financial impact 
statement, the Court has limited itself only to addressing whether the statement is 
clear and unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-five words, and is limited 
to addressing the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to the 
state or local governments.  See Advisory Op. re Protect People from Health 
Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So. 2d at 1194.  In the cases where this Court 
found the financial impact statement to be defective, it was because the statement 
- 9 -
did not comply with these specific requirements.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Repeal of High Speed Rail Amendment, 880 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 2004) 
(rejecting the proposed financial impact statement because certain provisions were 
not expressed in terms of the “probable financial impact” and because the 
statement went beyond addressing “revenues or costs to state or local 
governments”); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Pub. Prot. from Repeated Med. 
Malpractice, 880 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 2004) (rejecting the proposed financial 
impact statement because phrase “range of potential impacts” in section 
100.371(6)(b)(3) must relate to the phrase “probable financial impact” set forth in 
the constitution and the proposed statement included potential impacts beyond 
monetary estimates); Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Authorizes Miami-Dade & 
Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, 880 
So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 2004) (same).   
The financial impact statement for this proposed amendment states: “This 
amendment is not expected to have an impact on state or local government 
expenses.”  The instant financial impact statement is well within the 75-five word 
limit and it clearly and unambiguously conveys that the amendment will not 
impact state or local government expenses. We find no basis to reject the financial 
impact statement under section 100.371(6).   
III. CONCLUSION 
- 10 -
For the reasons stated, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed ballot 
title and summary for the amendment “Prohibiting state spending for 
experimentation that involves the destruction of a live human embryo” meets the 
legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and section 
101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2006).  Likewise, the accompanying financial impact 
statement is in accordance with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2006). 
Accordingly, we approve the amendment and financial impact statement for 
placement on the ballot. 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
BELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
CANTERO, J., concurs. 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
BELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
I concur with the approval of the initiative petition.  However, I dissent as to 
this Court’s review and approval of the financial impact statement.  I do so because 
I conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to render advisory opinions concerning 
the validity of financial impact statements.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), art. 
XI, §§ 3, 5, Fla. Const.  In other words,  I believe that this Court’s jurisdiction to 
- 11 -
render an advisory opinion is limited to the initiative petition itself and does not  
encompass the separate financial impact statement.  
CANTERO, J., concurs.  
Two Cases:  
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General  
Bill McCollum, Attorney General and Louis F. Hubener, Chief Deputy Solicitor  
General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
Major B. Harding and Stephen C. Emmanuel of Ausley and McMullen, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
for Citizens for Science and Ethics, Inc., Sponsor 
- 12 -