Opinion ID: 1659480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proposed Tax Limitation Amendment

Text: This proposal seeks to create article XI, section 7, of the Florida Constitution. The full text of the proposed amendment provides: Article XI of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended by creating a new Section 7 reading as follows: Notwithstanding Article X, Section 12(d) of this constitution, no new State tax or fee shall be imposed on or after November 8, 1994 by any amendment to this constitution unless the proposed amendment is approved by not fewer than two-thirds of the voters voting in the election in which such proposed amendment is considered. For purposes of this section, the phrase new State tax or fee shall mean any tax or fee which would produce revenue subject to lump sum or other appropriation by the Legislature, either for the State general revenue fund or any trust fund, which tax or fee is not in effect on November 7, 1994 including without limitation such taxes and fees as are the subject of proposed constitutional amendments appearing on the ballot on November 8, 1994. This section shall apply to proposed constitutional amendments relating to State taxes or fees which appear on the November 8, 1994 ballot, or later ballots, and any such proposed amendment which fails to gain the two-thirds vote required hereby shall be null, void and without effect. The ballot title for the proposed amendment is: Tax Limitation: Should Two-Thirds Vote Be Required for New Constitutionally-Imposed State Taxes/Fees? The summary for the proposed amendment provides: Prohibits imposition of new State taxes or fees on or after November 8, 1994 by constitutional amendment unless approved by two-thirds of the voters voting in the election. Defines new State taxes or fees as revenue subject to appropriation by State Legislature, which tax or fee is not in effect on November 7, 1994. Applies to proposed State tax and fee amendments on November 8, 1994 ballot and those on later ballots. The Attorney General has written to inform the Court of his opposition to the Tax Limitation initiative and suggests that the initiative substantially affects other provisions in the constitution without clearly identifying these provisions and that its language is ambiguous. The initiative is also opposed by The League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc., Common Cause, The Florida Audubon Society, and the American Planning Association. These groups make essentially the same arguments as the Attorney General. In defense of the initiative, the Tax Cap Committee states that the initiative is limited in scope and is not ambiguous. We find that this initiative fails to meet the single-subject requirement because it combines taxes and fees. The proponents have stated that this initiative is intended to make it harder to amend the constitution for both taxes and fees. Specifically, this proposal would require a two-thirds vote (1) to change the methods of general taxation or establish alternative methods of general taxation by constitutional amendment and (2) to change or authorize by constitutional provision an exaction of any new user fee. We have previously stated that tax and user fee provisions may not be joined in a single initiative. See Fine, 448 So.2d at 990-91. General tax revenue, utilized for governmental operations and user fee revenue, primarily utilized to fund services received by the paying customers, do not have a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme, and, therefore, are clearly separate subjects... . Id. at 991. Despite our clear pronouncement in Fine, the tax limitation initiative improperly attempts to combine provisions concerning both taxes and user fees in a single initiative and, as a result, it violates the single-subject requirement. Because of this finding, we need not address the other issues raised by the opponents. [2]