Title: Advisory Opinion To The Attorney General Re: Standards For Establishing Legislative District Boundaries (FIS)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC08-1163
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2009

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC08-1163 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE:  
STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 
BOUNDARIES (FIS). 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC08-1165 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE:  
STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN CONGRESSIONAL 
REDISTRICTING (FIS). 
 
[December 17, 2009] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
On January 29, 2009, this Court approved for placement on the ballot two 
proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution detailing additional guidelines 
that the Florida Legislature must follow when it conducts legislative and 
congressional reapportionment.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for 
Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 191 (Fla. 2009).  While 
this Court considered the validity of the petitions, the Attorney General also 
 
- 2 - 
requested that the Court review the corresponding financial impact statements to 
evaluate their compliance with section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2008).  See 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. 
Boundaries (FIS), 2 So. 3d 161, 162 (Fla. 2009).  We remanded the statements to 
the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) to be redrafted because the 
statements in their then-current form did not satisfy the statutory requirements.  
See id. at 166.  
On February 18, 2009, the Attorney General filed revised financial impact 
statements with this Court and requested an opinion with regard to whether the 
statements comply with section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2008).  As with the 
previous submissions, the revised statements are identical: 
The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely.  State government 
and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases 
beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have 
occurred in the amendment’s absence.   
 
We possess jurisdiction to consider the validity of financial impact statements 
pursuant to article IV, section 10, and article V, section 3(b)(10) of the Florida 
Constitution.   
ANALYSIS 
Applicable Law 
 
Article XI, section 5 of the Florida Constitution addresses financial impact 
statements and provides in relevant part: 
 
- 3 - 
(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 (2008), addresses financial impact statements 
and provides: 
(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. 
. . . . 
(c) . . . . 
2. 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. . . .  
3. If the members of the Financial Impact Estimating 
Conference are unable to agree on the statement required by this 
subsection, or if the Supreme Court has rejected the initial submission 
by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference and no redraft has 
been approved by the Supreme Court by 5 p.m. on the 75th day before 
the election, the following statement shall appear on the ballot 
pursuant to s. 101.161(1): ―The financial impact of this measure, if 
any, cannot be reasonably determined at this time.‖ 
 
. . . .  
(e)1. Any financial impact statement that the Supreme Court 
finds not to be in accordance with this subsection shall be remanded 
solely to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting, 
 
- 4 - 
provided the court’s advisory opinion is rendered at least 75 days 
before the election at which the question of ratifying the amendment 
will be presented.  The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall 
prepare and adopt a revised financial impact statement no later than 5 
p.m. on the 15th day after the date of the court’s opinion. 
 
 
 
In our opinion that rejected the original financial impact statements, we explained 
our duty with regard to the review of such statements: 
[W]hen we review a financial impact statement for compliance with 
section 100.371, we address ―whether the statement is clear, 
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.‖  Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re: Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 959 So. 2d 
195, 202 (Fla. 2007).  Because the financial impact statement will be 
printed on the ballot, the same due process concerns that inure to the 
title and summary of a proposed amendment are also applicable to the 
financial impact statement.  See Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 
155 (Fla. 1982) (―[T]he voter should not be misled . . . .  What the law 
requires is that the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to 
enable him intelligently to cast his ballot.‖ (alteration in original) 
(quoting Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 1954))). 
Accordingly, we have an obligation to review the ballot as a whole to 
ensure that no part of the ballot—which includes the financial impact 
statement—is misleading. 
. . . .The rationale behind such a review is both clear and 
logical.  It would make little sense to require that a proposed 
amendment title and summary not be misleading to voters, but then 
allow a financial impact statement that contains inaccurate or 
completely speculative predictions of potential financial impact to be 
placed on the ballot. 
Legislative District Boundaries (FIS), 2 So. 3d at 164. 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
Application of Law 
We conclude that the current statements satisfy the requirements of section 
100.371.  The statements consist of thirty-four words each, which falls well within 
the seventy-five word limit mandated by the statute.  See § 100.371(5)(c)2., Fla. 
Stat. (2008).  In addition, the current statements do not contain the vague and 
speculative reference to ―millions of dollars‖ in increased costs that this Court 
rejected in the original financial impact statements.  See Legislative District 
Boundaries (FIS), 2 So. 3d at 165 n.3; see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov’t Comprehensive 
Land Use Plans, 992 So. 2d 190, 193 (Fla. 2008) (rejecting statement which 
provided a financial impact of ―millions of dollars‖ because under this language, 
―the cost of implementation of the amendment could be anywhere from $2 million 
to $999 million,‖ and concluding that such vague language may cause citizens to 
vote against the amendment ―solely because of fear generated by the misleading 
statement concerning the potential economic consequences of the amendment‖).   
 
Moreover, the statements do not include any nonmonetary impacts or 
financial impacts beyond the revenues or costs to state or local governments, the 
inclusion of which has led to the rejection of impact statements in the past.  See, 
e.g., Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Authorizes Miami-Dade & Broward County 
Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, 880 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 
 
- 6 - 
2004); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Public Protection from Repeated Medical 
Malpractice, 880 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2004); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Repeal of 
High Speed Rail Amendment, 880 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2004).   
Instead, the statements commence with the conclusion that the impact of the 
amendments cannot be precisely determined, a conclusion which is clearly 
permitted under the statute.  See § 100.371(5)(c)3., Fla. Stat. (2008) (allowing an 
FIS to provide that ―[t]he financial impact of this measure, if any, cannot be 
reasonably determined at this time‖).  The statements then follow with a second, 
conditional sentence—if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of 
cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence, then additional 
costs may be incurred.  FairDistrictsFlorida.org, the sponsor of the proposed 
constitutional amendments, contends that this conditional second sentence 
constitutes impermissible speculation which may not appear in an estimate of 
financial impact.  It is true that we have previously condemned the use of 
speculation in prior financial impact statements.  Indeed, we rejected the original 
financial impact statements in part because the FIEC’s attempt to establish a 
litigation-cost baseline from which to measure any alleged increased cost of the 
proposed amendments was deemed to be ―dubious and highly speculative.‖  
Legislative District Boundaries (FIS), 2 So. 3d at 165-66. 
 
- 7 - 
Despite this condemnation, this Court has nonetheless previously approved 
financial impact statements that contain conditional phrases.  Most notably, in 
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Extending Existing Sales Tax to 
Non-Taxed Services Where Exclusion Fails to Serve Public Purpose, 953 So. 2d 
471 (Fla. 2007), we held that two financial impact statements complied with 
Florida law where the statements explained that the probable impact of two 
proposed amendments was dependent on future action by the Legislature and, 
therefore, could not be determined.  As in the present case, the impact statements 
contained conditional language: 
Although state and local governments could potentially receive 
substantial revenue from non-taxed services subject to legislative 
review, the probable impact of the amendment is dependent upon 
future action of the legislature and cannot be determined.  If the 
legislature exempts all services that are currently non-taxed, state and 
local government revenues will not be affected.  If the legislature fails 
to exempt one or more services that are currently non-taxed, state and 
local revenues will increase. 
 
. . . .  
Although the value of sales tax exemptions subject to legislative 
review is substantial, the probable impact of the amendment on state 
and local government revenues is dependent upon future actions of the 
legislature and cannot be determined.  If the legislature reenacts and 
continues all existing exemptions, state and local government 
revenues will not be affected.  If the legislature does not reenact one 
or more exemptions, state and local government revenues will 
increase. 
 
Id. at 485, 489.  Thus, prior precedent compels a conclusion that the conditional 
phrase in the second sentence of the financial impact statements is not 
 
- 8 - 
impermissible and does not render the statements noncompliant with section 
100.371. 
 
Although we do not reject the statements as revised, it may become 
necessary to reconsider whether to allow financial impact statements that contain 
conditional phrases on the ballot in light of our constitutional duty to protect and 
preserve the integrity of the amendment process: 
[F]inancial impact statements [should] not devolve into a tool used to 
manipulate the public based solely upon whether the entity 
empowered and entrusted with preparing the statements favors or 
disfavors a proposal.  Scare tactics and vague, unsupported 
predictions of financial disaster have no place in this constitutional-
amendment process, and any predictions of financial impact must be 
grounded in fact, not partisan ideology.  Otherwise, the core purpose 
of financial impact statements (i.e., to inform voters so that an 
educated decision may be made with regard to a proposed 
amendment) would be completely defeated. 
Legislative District Boundaries (FIS), 2 So. 3d at 165; see also Repeated Medical 
Malpractice, 880 So. 2d at 687 (Lewis, J., specially concurring) (expressing 
concern that broad interpretation of law governing financial impact could reduce 
statements into ―a vehicle for any manner of content and language, including 
politicized statements designed as an attempt to sway the voters of this state, as 
long as those statements are clear and unambiguous‖). 
CONCLUSION 
 
 
- 9 - 
 
Based upon prior precedent from this Court, we hold that the financial 
impact statements comply with section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2008), and may 
be placed on the ballot.  
It is so ordered. 
 
LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result only. 
QUINCE, C.J., dissents with an opinion. 
PARIENTE, J., recused. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
QUINCE, C.J., dissenting. 
 
 
I dissent because I do not believe that this financial impact statement 
complies with the spirit and purpose of these statements.  A financial impact 
statement is intended to give the voters a realistic, and I believe, unbiased 
statement of what the voter might expect the State or other political subdivision of 
the State to expend in order to implement the amendment if it should pass.  The 
statement should be neutral and state both sides of the expenditure issue, if there is 
more than one possibility.  The financial impact statement should not be used as a 
scare tactic to discourage the voter.  This financial statement is not a neutral 
statement of the financial consequences.  The other side in this instance is that 
there may be little or no financial impact beyond what is already experienced when 
legislative districts are being established.  This possible impact could have also 
 
- 10 - 
been stated as the drafters only used thirty-four of the seventy-five words 
allowable for financial impact statements. 
 
I would not allow this statement to be placed on the ballot. 
 
Two Cases: 
 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General 
 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Louis F. Hubener, Solicitor General, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Barry Richard and M. Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, 
Florida, Jon L. Mills of Boies, Schiller and Flexner, LLP, Miami, Florida, and 
Timothy McLendon, Gainesville, Florida, Mark Herron of Messer, Caparello and 
Self, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, and E. Thom Rumberger of Rumberger, Kirk and 
Caldwell, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for FairDistrictsFlorida.org, Sponsor 
 
Jason Vail, General Counsel, Florida Senate, and Jeremiah M. Hawkes, General 
Counsel, Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of The 
Florida Legislature, 
 
 
as Opponents