Opinion ID: 1708250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: review of ballot title and summary

Text: Section 101.161(1) of the Florida Statutes governs the requirements for ballot titles and summaries and provides, in relevant part: Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot.... § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, the statute requires that the ballot title and summary state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen.Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla.1991); accord Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d at 566. Above all, the title and summary must be accurate and informative. See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d 798, 803 (Fla.1998). These requirements make certain that the electorate is advised of the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 490 (Fla.1994) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)). This Court has concluded that the purpose of ballot title and summary statute was to provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot. Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d at 803 (quoting Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d at 566). In sum, it is this Court's responsibility... to determine whether the language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public. Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d at 566. When the summary of a proposed amendment does not accurately describe the scope of the text of the amendment, it fails in its purpose and must be stricken. Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d at 804. In Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, this Court struck an amendment from the ballot because there were discrepancies between the amendment and the summary that were material and misleading. 705 So.2d at 566. The Court described such ambiguity as being a divergence in terminology and found that it caused the amendment to be fatally defective. Id. However, in the proposed amendment before us, we do not find material or misleading discrepancies between the summary and the amendment. In fact, the summary in this amendment comes very close to reiterating the briefly worded amendment. We also note that it is not necessary for the title and summary to explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates' Campaigns, 693 So.2d 972, 975 (Fla.1997). Even the terms claim for medical liability and medical liability claim do not represent a discrepancy between the amendment and summary because those terms are used consistently between the summary and the amendment. Although the opponents argue that the efficacy of the amendment is at issue because of the vague medical liability term, the issue as to the precise meaning of this term is better left to subsequent litigation, should the amendment pass. Under the scope of our review, we find the wording of the title and summary sufficient to communicate the chief purpose of the measure. Thus, we conclude that the ballot summary explains the chief purpose of the proposed amendment and meets the statutory requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.