Title: Advisory Opinion Re Term Limits Pledge
Citation: 718 So. 2d 798
Docket Number: 92162
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 1, 1998

718 So. 2d 798 (1998)
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE TERM LIMITS PLEDGE.
No. 92162.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 1, 1998.
*800 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Louis F. Hubener, III, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Presentor.
Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, for Floridians for Congressional Term Limits and Rick Bruns, Respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The Attorney General has requested that this Court review a proposed citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution (hereinafter "proposed amendment"). We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10; art V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.
The proposed amendment was circulated by an organization known as Floridians for Congressional Term Limits (hereinafter "proponent"). The ballot title for the proposed amendment is "TERM LIMITS PLEDGE." The summary for the proposed amendment provides:
The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:
This Court issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs on the proposed amendment, and one party did sothe proponent. While no briefs were filed by interested parties opposing the proposed amendment, the Attorney General expressed his concern that:
Letter from Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, to The Honorable Gerald Kogan, Chief Justice, and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida 4 (Jan. 7, 1998) (on file with Supreme Court of Florida). The Attorney General further noted his concern that the "proposed amendment imposes constitutional duties upon the Secretary of State not presently possessed by that office and creates a mandatory ballot procedure that affects candidates for congressional office." Id. at 6.
Our jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions on proposed amendments based on citizen initiative petitions emanates from the Florida Constitution. Specifically, article IV, section 10 of the Florida Constitution provides that "[t]he attorney general shall, as directed by general law," request this Court's opinion "as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI." (Emphasis added.) Article V, section 3(b)(10) further provides that this Court "[s]hall, when requested by the attorney general pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV, render an advisory opinion of the justices, addressing issues as provided by general law." (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to general law, section 16.061(1), Florida Statutes (1997), requires that the Attorney General seek 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."
Accordingly, the scope of our advisory opinions on proposed amendments based on citizen initiative petitions has traditionally been limited to two legal issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and (2) whether the ballot title and summary of the proposed amendment are misleading, in violation of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1997). See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re People's Property Rights Amendments, 699 So. 2d 1304, 1306 (Fla.1997); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 489-90 (Fla.1994). We have interpreted our jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions in this context as limited to these two considerations.[1]See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen.Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla.1991).
Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides in pertinent part that proposed amendments based on citizen initiative petitions "shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." The single-subject requirement applies only to the citizen initiative method of amending the constitution because *802 section 3 [citizen initiative] does not afford the same opportunity for public hearing and debate that accompanies the proposal and drafting processes of sections 1, 2, and 4.[[2]] Accordingly, section 3 protects against multiple "precipitous" and "cataclysmic" changes in the constitution by limiting to a single subject what may be included in any one amendment proposal.
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Fish &amp; Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1998).
To comply with the single-subject requirement, a proposed amendment must manifest a "logical and natural oneness of purpose." Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla.1984). This determination requires this Court to consider whether the proposed amendment affects separate functions of government, as well as how it affects other provisions of the constitution. See In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla.1994). "[T]he possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment." Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen.Fee on the Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1128 (Fla.1996) (quoting Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Ltd. Casinos, 644 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1994)). Likewise, "[a] proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail." Fish &amp; Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So. 2d  at 1353-54. Rather, "it is when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches that it violates the single-subject test." Id. at 1354.
This proposed amendment affects two articles of the state constitutionarticle IV and article VIneither of which currently grants constitutional recognition to the Secretary of State's election-related powers and duties. Presently, article IV, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution provides only that "[t]he secretary of state shall keep the records of the official acts of the legislative and executive departments," but grants no involvement or responsibility in elections to the Secretary of State. Article VI, which specifically addresses elections, provides that "elections shall ... be regulated by law." Art. VI, § 1, Fla. Const. Thus, presently the Florida Statutes, not the Florida Constitution, establish the Secretary of State as "the chief election officer of the state." § 97.012, Fla. Stat. (1997).
The proposed amendment grants constitutional recognition to the Secretary of State's election-related powers and duties that have previously been statutory. In Limited Political Terms, we upheld under the single-subject requirement a proposed amendment mandating term limits where "[t]he sole subject of the proposed amendment [was] limiting the number of consecutive terms that certain elected public officers may serve." 592 So. 2d  at 227. Unlike the proposed amendment in Limited Political Terms, the proposed amendment at issue here not only impacts elections, but also establishes constitutional discretionary authority within the Secretary of State in regard to elections.
However, we do not find that this proposed amendment, even though affecting the constitutional authority of the Secretary of State and affecting more than one provision of the constitution, lacks oneness of purpose, as the constitutional expansion of the Secretary of State's powers is related specifically to the issue of the term limits pledge. It does not substantially alter the functions of multiple branches of government.
Although we do not find that this proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement of the state constitution, we find a distinct problem with the ballot summary. In order for the public to fully comprehend the contemplated changes of a proposed amendment, section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part that
This statute requires that the title and summary be accurate and informative. See Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d  at 490. The ballot title and summary must "state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure," Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla.1998) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 155 (Fla.1982)), and "assure that the electorate is advised of the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment." Askew, 421 So. 2d  at 156; see also Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d  at 1021 (ballot summary must inform of meaning and effect of amendment).
The purpose of the statute is "to provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot." Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d  at 566 (quoting Fee on Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So.2d at 1127). "A ballot summary may be defective if it omits material facts necessary to make the summary not misleading." Limited Political Terms, 592 So. 2d  at 228; see also Askew, 421 So. 2d  at 158 (Ehrlich, J., concurring). Accordingly, in Fish &amp; Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, this Court struck a ballot summary that did not "explain to the reader" or "sufficiently inform the public" of important aspects of the proposed amendment. 705 So. 2d  at 1355. Likewise, in Tax Limitation, this Court struck a ballot summary that was devoid of any mention of important consequences of the proposed amendment. 644 So. 2d  at 495.
On the other hand, we did not strike the ballot summary at issue in Limited Political Terms because we found that
592 So. 2d  at 228. The omissions in this ballot summary are far more critical. This proposed amendment, if approved by the electorate and incorporated into the state constitution, would substantially impact article IV of the Florida Constitution regarding the Secretary of State's powers and duties. However, in this regard, the ballot summary simply states that the proposed amendment affects the powers of the Secretary of State.
The powers that the proposed amendment would bestow on the Secretary of State would not be purely ministerial in nature. Under the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State would have discretion to promulgate rules regarding the implementation of the amendment. Such rules would be necessary to address currently unanswered questions such as whether a candidate who voluntarily took the term limits pledge could thereafter voluntarily repudiate the pledge without ballot repercussions; whether a candidate who has served three terms in the House of Representatives would break the term limits pledge by seeking election to the Senate; whether a Florida candidate's prior service as a United States Representative or Senator from another state would be part of the term limit; or whether the term limits pledge applies only to consecutive terms, or to interspersed terms as well.
The power to answer these and other decisive questions would be, in large part, the power to ultimately determine which candidates would suffer the "Broke Term Limits Pledge" notation next to their name on the ballot.[3] This cuts to the very core of the *804 chief purpose of the proposed amendment to identify on the ballot those candidates who have taken and broken the term limits pledge. The ballot summary fails to inform the public that the Secretary of State would be granted discretionary constitutional powers concerning elections that the Secretary of State presently does not possess. Because the ballot summary is silent as to the constitutional ramifications on, and the discretionary authority vested in, the Secretary of State under the proposed amendment, the ballot summary must fail.
In short, the problem "lies not with what the summary says, but, rather, with what it does not say." Fish &amp; Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So. 2d  at 1355 (quoting Askew, 421 So.2d at 156). When the summary of a proposed amendment does not accurately describe the scope of the text of the amendment, it fails in its purpose and must be stricken. For the reasons expressed, we direct that this proposed ballot summary be stricken and the proposed amendment not be placed on the ballot.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
HARDING, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.
OVERTON, Justice, concurring in result only.
I concur in result only because I strongly believe that it is a fraud on the public to indicate that this initiative provision could be properly placed on the ballot if the ballot summary was not misleading. I find this entire provision to be unconstitutional on its face under U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 131 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1995).
I still adhere to the view that I expressed in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney GeneralLimited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1991), that this Court is
Id. at 229-30 (Overton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In my view, it is clearly within our authority to state that a proposed state constitutional initiative is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. This proposal is unconstitutional on its face and there is no justifiable reason for us not to say so. Our declaration that the proposal is unconstitutional would avoid substantial costs by both proponents and opponents and a perception of the public that they are voting on a valid constitutional provision.
HARDING, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority that the proposed citizen initiative amendment does not violate the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. However, I dissent because I believe the proposed amendment complies with the ballot title and summary requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1997).
SHAW, J., concurs.
[1]  While we do not pass on the constitutionality of inserting a term limits pledge provision in our state constitution, we note that any provision of a state constitution that imposes qualifications on federal offices in addition to the qualifications set forth in the federal constitution is unconstitutional. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 131 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1995); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 229-33 (Fla.1991) (Overton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Based on Thornton, the term limits provision for federal offices currently in the Florida Constitution, article VI, section 4(b)(5)-(6), would be unconstitutional.
[2]  Sections 1, 2, and 4, respectively, provide that amendments to the Florida Constitution may be initiated by legislative proposal, every twenty years by a Revision Commission, or by a constitutional convention.
[3]  Such a notation is obviously intended to be, and would be, a negative comment on the candidate at issue, and would potentially adversely affect that candidate's chances of being elected.