Opinion ID: 1597538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Altering the Function of Multiple Branches

Text: This Court has 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). The 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 the present case, the proposed amendment may affect several branches of government but it does not substantially alter or perform the functions of those branches. First, the amendment does not usurp the function of the judiciary. Rather, the amendment leaves the prime function of the judiciary intact and in fact promotes that function by requiring judges to perform several quintessential judicial functions: determining eligibility for treatment under the amendment, entering orders to ensure compliance with prescribed regimens, responding to violations, and terminating treatment when appropriate. Second, the amendment does not usurp the function of the Legislature. Rather, the amendment leaves the prime function of that body intact. The proposed net ban amendment in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney GeneralLimited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So.2d 997 (Fla.1993), deprived the Legislature of the right to designate certain behavior as criminal and to punish violations in any way other than the way prescribed in the amendment. In conducting its analysis of that amendment, the Court focused on the fact that the amendment is functionally and facially unified. The Court held that the amendment did not violate the single-subject rule. Similarly, the present amendment, by proposing a uniform system for dealing with first-and second-time nonviolent drug offenders, is functionally and facially unified; it is far less invasive of legislative authority than the net ban amendment. Third, the amendment does not substantially usurp the function of the executive branch. Rather, the amendment leaves the prime function of that branch intact, for it has no effect on the power of prosecutors to charge persons with crimes where appropriate. The amendment contemplates that the charging of drug offenses will proceed as it always has; it is only after charging or conviction takes place that the amendment's diversion option is implicated. Florida law currently allows diversion for drug offenders on the motion of either party or the trial court itself. [9]