Title: Advisory Opinion To The Attorney General Re: Protect People, Especially Youth, From Addiction, Disease, And Other Health Hazards Of Using Tobacco.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC05-1897
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
________________________ 
 
Nos. SC05-1897 & SC05-2098 
________________________ 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
RE: PROTECT PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY YOUTH, FROM ADDICTION, 
DISEASE, AND OTHER HEALTH HAZARDS OF USING TOBACCO. 
 
[March 16, 2006] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Attorney General has requested that this Court review a proposed 
amendment to the Florida Constitution designed to protect people, especially 
youth, from addiction, disease, or other health hazards of using tobacco, including 
the corresponding financial impact statement.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 
10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.  For the reasons explained below, we approve the 
amendment, the ballot title and summary, and the financial impact statement for 
placement on the ballot. 
I.  THE PROPOSALS 
 
The text of the proposed amendment, the ballot title and summary, and the 
financial impact statement are set out individually below. 
 
 
 
- 2 -
A.  Proposed Amendment 
 
 
The proposed amendment1 provides as follows: 
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT: 
Article X, Florida Constitution, is amended to add the following: 
Section 27.  Comprehensive Statewide Tobacco Education and 
Prevention Program.  In order to protect people, especially youth, 
from health hazards of using tobacco, including addictive disorders, 
cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and lung diseases; and to discourage 
use of tobacco, particularly among youth, a portion of the money that 
tobacco companies pay to the State of Florida under the Tobacco 
Settlement each year shall be used to fund a comprehensive statewide 
tobacco education and prevention program consistent with 
recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), as follows: 
(a)  Program.  The money appropriated pursuant to this section 
shall be used to fund a comprehensive statewide tobacco education 
and prevention program consistent with the recommendations for 
effective program components in the 1999 Best Practices for 
Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs of the CDC, as such Best 
Practices may be amended by the CDC.  This program shall include, 
at a minimum, the following components, and may include additional 
components that are also contained within the CDC Best Practices, as 
periodically amended, and that are effective at accomplishing the 
purpose of this section, and that do not undermine the effectiveness of 
these required minimum components: 
(1) 
an advertising campaign to discourage the use of tobacco 
and to educate people, especially youth, about the health hazards of 
tobacco, which shall be designed to be effective at achieving these 
goals and shall include, but need not be limited to, television, radio, 
and print advertising, with no limitations on any individual advertising 
medium utilized; and which shall be funded at a level equivalent to 
one-third of each total annual appropriation required by this section; 
(2) 
evidence-based curricula and programs to educate youth 
about tobacco and to discourage their use of it, including, but not 
                                          
 
1.  No briefs were filed in opposition to this ballot initiative. 
 
 
- 3 -
limited to, programs that involve youth, educate youth about the 
health hazards of tobacco, help youth develop skills to refuse tobacco, 
and demonstrate to youth how to stop using tobacco; 
(3) 
programs of local community-based partnerships that 
discourage the use of tobacco and work to educate people, especially 
youth, about the health hazards of tobacco, with an emphasis on 
programs that involve youth and emphasize the prevention and 
cessation of tobacco use; 
(4) 
enforcement of laws, regulations, and policies against the 
sale or other provision of tobacco to minors, and the possession of 
tobacco by minors; and  
(5) 
publicly-reported annual evaluations to ensure that 
moneys appropriated pursuant to this section are spent properly, 
which shall include evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in 
reducing and preventing tobacco use, and annual recommendations 
for improvements to enhance the program’s effectiveness, which are 
to include comparisons to similar programs proven to be effective in 
other states, as well as comparisons to CDC Best Practices, including 
amendments thereto. 
(b)  Funding.  In every year beginning with the calendar year 
after voters approve this amendment, the Florida Legislature shall 
appropriate, for the purpose expressed herein, from the total gross 
funds that tobacco companies pay to the State of Florida under the 
Tobacco Settlement, an amount equal to fifteen percent of such funds 
paid to the State in 2005; and the appropriation required by this 
section shall be adjusted annually for inflation, using the Consumer 
Price Index as published by the United States Department of Labor. 
(c)  Definitions.  “Tobacco” includes, without limitation, 
tobacco itself and tobacco products that include tobacco and are 
intended or expected for human use or consumption, including, but 
limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.  
The “Tobacco Settlement” means that certain Settlement Agreement 
dated August 25, 1997, entered into in settlement of the case styled as 
State of Florida, et al. v. American Tobacco Company, et al., Case 
No. 95-1466 AH (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.), as amended by Stipulation of 
Amendment dated September 11, 1998; and includes any subsequent 
amendments and successor agreements.  “Youth” includes minors and 
young adults. 
(d)  Effective Date.  This amendment shall become effective 
immediately upon approval by the voters.  
 
 
- 4 -
 
B.  Ballot Title and Summary 
 
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is “Protect People, Especially 
Youth, From Addiction, Disease, and Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco.”  
The summary for the proposed amendment states: 
To protect people, especially youth, from addiction, disease, and other 
health hazards of using tobacco, the Legislature shall use some 
Tobacco Settlement money annually for a comprehensive statewide 
tobacco education and prevention program using Centers for Disease 
Control best practices.  Specifies some program components, 
emphasizing youth, requiring one-third of total annual funding for 
advertising.  Annual funding is 15% of 2005 Tobacco Settlement 
payments to Florida, adjusted annually for inflation.  Provides 
definitions.  Effective immediately. 
C.  Financial Impact Statement 
 
The statement provides as follows: 
 
This amendment requires the state government to appropriate 
approximately $57 million in 2007 for the Comprehensive Statewide 
Tobacco Education and Prevention Program.  Thereafter, this amount 
will increase annually with inflation.  This spending is expected to 
reduce tobacco consumption.  As a result, some long-term savings to 
state and local government health and insurance programs are 
probable, but indeterminate.  Also, minor revenue loss to state 
government is probable, but indeterminate. 
II.  STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW 
The overall standard of review for the proposed amendment and the ballot 
title and summary are the same.  In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re 
Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race 
 
 
- 5 -
in Public Education, 778 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2000), this Court summarized its 
standard of review in initiative petition cases 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).  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.  In determining 
the propriety of the initiative petitions, the Court does not review the 
merits of the proposed amendments.  
Id. at 890-91 (citations omitted). 
III.  SINGLE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT 
A.  Applicable Law 
 
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, requires that an amendment 
proposed by initiative “embrace but one subject and matter directly connected 
therewith.”  This single-subject limitation protects the State Constitution from 
“precipitous” and “spasmodic” changes.  See Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 
993 (Fla. 1984).  There are two purposes for the single-subject rule.  First, the 
limitation prevents logrolling by “allow[ing] the citizens to vote on singular 
changes in our government that are identified in the proposal and to avoid voters 
having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change 
which they support.”  Id.  Second, it “prevent[s] a single constitutional amendment 
from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple aspects of 
 
 
- 6 -
government.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide 
High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So. 2d 
367, 369 (Fla. 2000).  In so doing, the single-subject rule ensures that the 
amendment’s impact on the Florida Constitution is limited and accurately 
disclosed. 
 
In determining compliance with the single-subject rule as to the first 
purpose, “this Court examines the amendment to determine whether it ‘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 and plan is the 
universal test.’ ”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Patients’ Right to Know About 
Adverse Med. Incidents, 880 So. 2d 617, 620 (Fla. 2004) (quoting Fine, 448 So. 2d 
at 990).  In determining compliance as to the second purpose, “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.”  Id.  We address each of these purposes in 
turn. 
B.  Application of Law 
 
The proposed amendment complies with the single-subject rule.  As shown 
below, it is not guilty of logrolling, and it embraces only one subject without 
 
 
- 7 -
impermissibly altering or performing any governmental function in a substantial 
way.   
1. Logrolling 
Logrolling is “a practice whereby an amendment is proposed which contains 
unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to support, in order to get 
an otherwise disfavored provision passed.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendments of Local Gov’t Comprehensive 
Land Use Plans, 902 So. 2d 763, 766 (Fla. 2005) (quoting High Speed Monorail, 
769 So. 2d at 369).   
The proposed amendment does not suffer from logrolling.  It addresses a 
single comprehensive plan for the education of youth about the health hazards 
related to tobacco.  Although this plan includes a list of components such as 
advertising, school curricula, and law enforcement, all of these components are 
related to the single unifying purpose.  It does not “combine subjects in such a 
manner as to force voters to accept one proposition they might not support in order 
to vote for one they favor.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla.’s Amendment to 
Reduce Class Size, 816 So. 2d 580, 583 (Fla. 2002).  In other words, the proposed 
amendment does not combine unrelated provisions, some of which are popular and 
others that may be disfavored.   
2.  Altering or Performing the Functions of Multiple Branches of Government 
 
 
- 8 -
The proposed amendment impacts the executive and legislative branches, 
but it does not substantially alter or perform their functions.  This proposed 
amendment impacts these branches because it mandates two things: (a) the 
development and implementation of a State program; and (b) the expenditure of 
State funds to fund the program.  However, these requirements are not substantial 
enough to be disqualifying.  Both requirements will be discussed individually.  
a. Program Development 
The proposed amendment impacts the legislative branch because it mandates 
that the Legislature create and evaluate a comprehensive statewide tobacco 
education and prevention program.  However, these requirements clearly are not 
disqualifying.  This Court has found that proposed amendments delineating 
components for a program were permissible where “the branches of government 
[were] left with wide discretion in determining the details of the project.”  Reduce 
Class Size, 816 So. 2d at 584 (quoting High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d at 371).  
Here, the proposed amendment sets forth a framework for the program but leaves 
the details for implementing and administering the program to the Legislature.  
Requiring the Legislature to create and evaluate such a program does not usurp the 
legislative lawmaking function.  
The executive branch also is impacted because the amendment requires the 
enforcement of laws, regulations and policies against the purchase and possession 
 
 
- 9 -
of tobacco by minors.  However, the executive branch already complies with this 
component of the proposal.  Even if it did not, the fact that this branch of 
government is required to comply with a provision of the Florida Constitution does 
not necessarily constitute the usurpation of the branch’s function within the 
meaning of the single-subject rule.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att’y. Gen. re Right 
to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 
497-98 (Fla. 2002) (finding amendment left executive branch prime function intact 
where it had no effect on the power of prosecutors to charge persons with crime 
when appropriate).  The executive branch’s prime function is the enforcement of 
the laws.  All this component of the amendment requires is the enforcement of 
these laws.   
Accordingly, the proposed amendment does not substantially alter or 
perform the function of the legislative or executive branch. 
b.  Program Funding 
 
The proposal designates a percentage of funds from the Tobacco Settlement2 
resulting in a specific dollar amount per year for appropriations to the program.  A 
funding provision for an amendment may not substantially interfere with either the 
legislative appropriations function or the executive veto power.  Advisory Op. to 
                                          
 
2.  The Tobacco Settlement, found at http://stic.neu.edu/Fl/flsettle.htm, 
awards the State of Florida five and one-half percent of $8 Billion in the year 2005, 
and per annum indefinitely.    
 
 
- 10 -
Att’y Gen. re Requirement for Adequate Pub. Educ. Funding, 703 So. 2d 446, 450 
(Fla. 1997).  This unique funding provision does not substantially interfere with the 
functions of either branch.   
The amendment’s funding provision is distinguishable from the one in 
Adequate Public Education Funding, 703 So. 2d 446.  In that decision, this Court 
struck down a proposed constitutional amendment requiring the State to expend 
forty percent of its entire appropriations under article III of the Florida 
Constitution, not including lottery proceeds or federal funds, for public education 
funding.  The Court reasoned that “[t]he educational funding amendment violated 
the single-subject principle because its rigid funding percentage actually performed 
the appropriation function of the Legislature and removed entirely the Governor’s 
ability to veto any portion of that appropriation.”  High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 
2d at 370 (discussing this Court’s reasoning in Adequate Public Education 
Funding, 703 So. 2d 446).  This massive restriction on appropriations also limited 
the entirety of the State’s other functions to the remaining sixty percent of the 
budget, rendering many other government functions impossible to fund.   
Our decisions in two other cases support our analysis of this current 
proposal.  In High Speed Monorail, this Court found no violation of the single-
subject rule where the proposed amendment did not require the Legislature to 
spend a specific percentage of the budget or even a specific amount, nor point to a 
 
 
- 11 -
specific tax or fee from which the revenues for the project would come.  769 So. 
2d at 370.  Moreover, in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Fee on 
Everglades Sugar Production, 681 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1996), where an initiative 
created new funding for a program rather than relying on the appropriations budget 
of the Legislature, the Court also found no violation of the single-subject rule.   
Guided by this precedent, we find that the funding provision here is not 
impermissibly rigid and restrictive to the legislative and executive branches.  As to 
the legislative branch, the proposal funds the program by requiring the Legislature 
to set aside yearly the fifteen percent of the year 2005 annual Tobacco Settlement 
payment to the State, adjusted annually for inflation.  It does not require that the 
Legislature appropriate a specified percentage of its budget to fund the program.   
More importantly, the proposal designates these funds for a use mandated by the 
settlement agreement itself.   
As to the executive branch, this Court has held that an amendment may 
mandate the expenditure of state funds without improperly usurping the 
Governor’s veto power.  See High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d at 371 (finding that 
amendment placing some restrictions or limits on veto power regarding budget for 
money to implement the amendment was not a prohibited cataclysmic change nor 
did it substantially alter the Governor’s powers).   
 
 
- 12 -
In essence, the proposed amendment has one chief purpose, which is to use a 
portion of the Tobacco Settlement money to create a tobacco education and 
prevention program especially directed toward youth.  The mechanism for 
achieving this purpose does not substantially alter or perform the functions of 
either the legislative or executive branch.  Therefore, the proposed amendment 
complies with the single-subject rule. 
IV.  REVIEW OF THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY 
A.  Applicable Law 
 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2005), specifies both substantive and 
technical requirements for the ballot title and summary.  Substantively, the ballot 
title and summary must provide a clear and unambiguous explanation of the chief 
purpose of the measure.  Id.  Technically, the ballot title must consist of a caption 
not exceeding fifteen words in length and the ballot summary may not exceed 
seventy-five words in length.  Id.  These requirements provide “voters with fair 
notice of the contents of the proposed initiative so that the voter will not be misled 
as to its purpose and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot.”  Advisory Op. to 
Att’y Gen. re People’s Prop. Rights Amendments Providing Comp. for Restricting 
Real Prop. Use May Cover Multiple Subjects, 699 So. 2d 1304, 1307 (Fla. 1997).  
“Simply put, the ballot must give the voter fair notice of the decision he must 
make.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 155 (Fla. 1982).  The title and 
 
 
- 13 -
summary must be accurate and informative, but they “need not explain every detail 
or ramification of the proposed amendment.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 975 
(Fla. 1997).  
B.  Application of Law 
First, when read together, the ballot title and summary are accurate and 
informative.  They provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so 
that the voter will not be misled and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot.  
The title of the initiative in this case is “Protect People, Especially Youth, From 
Addiction, Disease, and Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco.”  The ballot 
summary clearly and unambiguously sets forth the initiative’s primary purpose and 
source of funding.  The ballot summary need not, and does not, reflect every 
component of the program.  Instead, it sets out a comprehensive statewide tobacco 
education and prevention program, which follows the Centers for Disease Control 
best practices and includes advertising.  The summary also states the funding for 
the program shall come annually from the Tobacco Settlement money in the 
amount of fifteen percent of the year 2005 payments, adjusted annually for 
inflation.  Thus, the ballot title and summary of the proposed amendment are clear 
and unambiguous.  They adequately inform the voters of the chief purpose of the 
proposed amendment.   
 
 
- 14 -
Second, the title and summary comply with the statute’s technical 
requirements.  The ballot title does not exceed fifteen words and the ballot 
summary does not exceed seventy-five words in accordance with section 
101.161(1).   
Therefore, the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) of 
the Florida Statutes. 
V.  REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
A.  Applicable Law 
Article XI, section 5(c), Florida Constitution, mandates that “[t]he 
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 initiative pursuant to section 3.”  
Section 100.371(6), Florida Statutes (2005), sets out the procedure for placement 
of these financial impact statements related to ballot initiatives on the ballot.  
Section 100.371(6)(a) requires that the statement address the estimated increase or 
decrease in any revenues or costs to the state or local governments resulting from 
the proposed initiative.  Section 100.371(6)(b)(3) requires that the statement be 
clear and unambiguous, consist of no more than seventy-five words, and permits 
the statement to set forth a range of potential impacts. 
 
 
 
- 15 -
B.  Application of Law 
The financial impact statement complies with section 100.371(6), Florida 
Statutes (2005).  The statement clearly conveys the financial impact as required by 
section 100.371(6)(a).  The statement first addresses the direct impact of the 
proposed initiative––$57 million in 2005 to be increased annually with inflation.  It 
next discusses indirect impact including long-term savings to State and local 
government health and insurance programs and minor revenue loss to State 
government, presumably through loss of tax revenue in light of decreased sales of 
tobacco products.  Although the indirect financial impacts are described as 
indeterminate, rather than quantified, this Court has previously found no basis to 
reject similar wording.  For example, in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General 
re Authorizes Miami-Dade & Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines 
in Parimutuel Facilities, 882 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2004), this Court found that a 
financial impact statement stating that “governmental costs associated with [an 
initiative] will increase by an unknown amount” may be placed on the ballot.  Not 
only did the statement decline to estimate the governmental costs, it also did not 
designate to what government, state or local, the costs would adhere.  Here, 
although the statement states that both the long-term savings and revenue loss are 
indeterminate, each is ascribed to a particular government.  Finally, the statement 
 
 
- 16 -
meets the requirements that it be clear and unambiguous and consist of no more 
than seventy-five words.  § 100.371(6)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. 
Accordingly, there is no basis for rejecting the financial impact statement 
under section 100.371(6).    
VI.  CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed title 
and summary meet the legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida 
Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2005), and that the financial 
impact statement is in accordance with section 100.371(6), Florida Statutes (2005).  
Accordingly, we approve the amendment and financial impact statement for 
placement on the ballot.  We note, however, that no other issue is addressed herein 
and this opinion should not be construed as expressing either favor for or 
opposition to the proposed amendment.  No motion for rehearing will be permitted. 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 17 -
Two Cases: 
 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General 
 
 
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Louis F. Hubener, Chief Deputy 
Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Stephen H. Grimes of Holland and Knight, LLP, and Susan L. Kelsey of Anchors 
Smith Grimsley, P.L., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Floridians for Youth Tobacco Education, Inc., Sponsors 
 
T. Elaine Holmes, Tampa, Florida, on behalf of Counsel for American Cancer 
Society, Florida Division, Inc. and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; Allen T. 
Geiger of Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida on behalf of Counsel for 
American Heart Association, Inc., Florida-Puerto Rico Affiliate; Mark O. Cooper 
of O’Neill, Liebman and Cooper, P.A., Orlando, Florida, on behalf of Counsel for 
American Lung Association of Florida, Inc. 
 
 
for Proponents