Opinion ID: 1708173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Altering or Performing the Functions of Multiple Branches of Government

Text: The single-subject rule also prevents a single amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of government and thereby causing multiple `precipitous' and `cataclysmic' changes in state government. Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d at 495. We previously have held that while most amendments will affect multiple branches of government, this fact alone is insufficient to invalidate an amendment on single-subject grounds: As the proponents of the amendment point out, the fact that an amendment affects multiple functions of government does not automatically invalidate a citizens' initiative. As we explained in detail in [a prior case]: We recognize that the petition, if passed, could affect multiple areas of government. In fact, we find it difficult to conceive of a constitutional amendment that would not affect other aspects of government to some extent. However, this Court has held that a proposed amendment can meet the single-subject requirement even though it affects multiple branches of government. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative, 769 So.2d 367, 369-70 (Fla.2000) (emphasis added). Further, the possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment. Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d at 74. The abiding test is as follows: 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 Att'y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So.2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla.1998) (emphasis added). In this case, opponents of the amendment raise essentially two main arguments with regard to this aspect of the single-subject rule. First, they assert that the amendment substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches and levels of government essentially by reducing the funds available to them. Several opponents cite to Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Requirement for Adequate Public Education Funding, 703 So.2d 446 (Fla.1997), in support of their position. In that case, the Court considered a proposed amendment which would require allocation of forty percent of state appropriations to public education. In striking this proposed amendment from the ballot, the Court concluded that not only did it substantially alter the legislature's present discretion in making value choices as to appropriations among the various vital functions of State government, but by arbitrarily limiting agencies, local governments and special districts to the remaining sixty percent of appropriations, it substantially altered the operation of the various requirements for finance and taxation in article VII in respect to bonded indebtedness and State mandates to local governments, thereby affecting the functioning of all State agencies, local governments, and special districts. Id. at 449. Additionally, the Court concluded that the amendment would limit the Governor's power of line-item veto and the constitutional function of the Governor and Cabinet in reducing the state budget in the event of a revenue shortfall. Id. Here, opponents' basic argument is that the potential loss of revenue resulting from the additional homestead exemption will make it harder for counties, municipalities and special districts to perform many of their functions, and may require, among other things, budgeting changes, reduction in funding for various services, and changes in millage rates. Opponents also argue that the loss of revenue may require the Legislature to take certain actions to ensure adequate funding for public education. These potential adverse effects are distinguishable from the type of multiple `precipitous' and `cataclysmic' changes described in the Adequate Public Education Funding case. See also Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re People's Property Rights Amendments, 699 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1997) (concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation be paid to owner when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulation, Legislature's constitutional duty to regulate land use to protect natural resources and scenic beauty, multiple functions of the executive branch, and more than one level of government). While an additional homestead exemption may result in a loss of revenue which would most certainly affect the governmental entities to which that revenue previously flowed, it would not essentially dictate and control the use of funds actually received, as the proposed amendment in Adequate Public Education Funding would have. Accordingly, we find that the proposed amendment does not substantially alter or perform the functions of multiple branches of government in violation of the single-subject rule. Second, opponents of the amendment assert that it substantially affects other provisions of the constitution without identification. We disagree. The proposed amendment provides for an additional homestead exemption in article VII, section 6. No provisions of the Florida Constitution outside of article VII involve homestead property tax exemptions. [2] In addition, the Court has repeatedly stated that the possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fee on Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Fla.1996) (quoting Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d at 74). Accordingly, the proposed amendment satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution.