Opinion ID: 1813651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Replacement of Equivalent Revenue

Text: The ballot title provides that proposed Amendment 5 ELIMINAT[ES] STATE REQUIRED SCHOOL PROPERTY TAX AND REPLAC[ES] WITH EQUIVALENT STATE REVENUES TO FUND EDUCATION. (Emphasis supplied.) The summary states that proposed Amendment 5 will replace state required school property taxes with state revenues generating an equivalent hold harmless amount  through a number of alternative revenue sources or spending reductions. (Emphasis supplied.) The title and summary indicate and convey the clear impression that the proposed amendment creates an annual equal trade-off; i.e., every year that school districts do not levy an ad valorem tax, the equivalent of those lost revenues will be replaced by revenue collected through other means. However, under the actual amendment, the equivalent hold harmless amount mentioned in the summary is only established for a single-year  the 2010-2011 fiscal year: (2) In implementing this section, the amount appropriated and set in the General Appropriations Act in the 2010-2011 fiscal year shall not be less than the amount appropriated and set in the 2008-2009 fiscal year for the funding of public schools under the Florida Education Finance Program, as increased by the average historical growth for such amounts during state fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, which appropriated and set amount shall be referred to as the education hold harmless amount. Thus, after the 2010-11 fiscal year, the actual amendment would no longer require the State to replace the revenue loss created by the prohibition upon school district ad valorem tax levies and the elimination of that revenue source. The failure of both the title and summary to mention this limitation on the equivalent or hold harmless amount would reasonably lead voters to believe that they are voting to implement a provision which obligates the State to generate, on an annual basis, replacement revenue in an equivalent or hold harmless amount to that which would have been generated by school district tax levies. If voters were made aware that after the 2010-2011 fiscal year the State would no longer be required to replenish lost revenue in an equivalent hold harmless amount, this aspect of the proposed Amendment 5 might weigh significantly in their decision to vote for or against the amendment. We agree with the trial court that the summary is misleading because of its failure to mention the duration limitation with regard to the hold harmless amount, which is one of the chief aspects of the amendment. This failure leaves voters with the impression that the amendment will accomplish something permanent and continuing, when in reality it does not. Cf. In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen.  Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1341 (Fla.1994) (ballot summary, which provided that sugar industry would help to pay to clean up pollution, was misleading because it gave the inaccurate impression that entities other than the sugarcane industry will be sharing the expense of cleanup; the Court concluded that [a] voter perusing the summary could well be misled on this material point). Non-Education-Related Taxes The ballot title clearly states that proposed Amendment 5 addresses school property taxes and, through limitation, distinctly implies only school property taxes. However, proposed Amendment 5 would also amend portions of the Florida Constitution that do not address school property taxes. This proposed Amendment 5 would reduce from ten percent to five percent the amount that all levies other than school district levies may exceed the assessment from the prior year. Although the summary does state that proposed Amendment 5 [l]imit[s] annual increases in assessment of non-homestead real property, this Court has held that the ballot title and summary may not be read in isolation, but must be read together in determining whether the ballot information properly informs the voters. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Fla.'s Amendment to Reduce Class Size, 816 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2002). The specific reference to school property taxes in the title would reasonably lead voters to believe that the maximum increases in assessment of non-homestead real property, referenced in the summary are limited to school property taxes. We have consistently followed principles parallel to those of statutory interpretation when reviewing issues related to constitutional provisions. See Coastal Fla. Police Benev. Ass'n v. Williams, 838 So.2d 543, 548 (Fla.2003). This Court noted in an early case, which addressed the title of a statute: If the title of a statute be a restrictive one, carving out for consideration a part only of a general subject, matters not germane to or properly connected with that part of the general subject so singled out, as reasonably and fairly understood, cannot be validly incorporated in the act. All provisions beyond such limits are invalid, even though such matters might have been incorporated in the act under a broader title, because as to such unrelated matters the title is misleading. State v. Sullivan, 99 Fla. 1070, 128 So. 478, 480 (1930) (emphasis supplied). Despite the assertions of the State and Vote Yes to the contrary, we conclude that this principle of law is equally, if not more, applicable to ballot titles for proposed constitutional amendments. The text of the constitutional amendment will not be present in the voting booth; rather, the ballot title and summary will be the only information that is available to voters. For this reason, accuracy of the title and summary is of paramount importance. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 13 (voter approval of a constitutional amendment that is inaccurately represented on the ballot is a nullity). The summary is misleading as to a primary effect of Amendment 5 because the proposed amendment impacts more than just school property taxes. Voters who support the elimination of such taxes might reconsider voting for Amendment 5 if they were informed by the ballot title and summary that the amendment also limits increases in annual assessments of non-school funds (such as funds assessed for police protection and emergency services). However, the actual ballot title and summary, when read together, do not clearly and unambiguously disclose this significant and distinct effect of proposed Amendment 5. Therefore, voters would likely be misled or confused with regard to the actual impact of proposed Amendment 5. See generally People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. County of Leon, 583 So.2d 1373, 1376 (Fla.1991) (ballot language defective where the proposal itself failed to specify exactly what was being changed, thereby confusing voters).