Opinion ID: 1788271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: title and summary

Text: Section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1993), lists the requirements for the ballot title and summary of a proposed constitutional amendment: 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... . The wording of the substance of the amendment or other public measure and the ballot title to appear on the ballot shall be embodied in the [proposal]... . The substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of. § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). [S]ection 101.161 requires that the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure. Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 154-55 (Fla. 1982). This is so that the voter will have notice of the issue contained in the amendment, will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot. Id. at 155. However, [i]t is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose. Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986). The title of the present initiative  SAVE OUR EVERGLADES  is misleading. It implies that the Everglades is lost, or in danger of being lost, to the citizens of our State, and needs to be saved via the proposed amendment. Yet, nothing in the text of the proposed amendment hints at this peril. Section (a) avers only that the Everglades was polluted at some point in the past by the sugarcane industry. The severity of pollution is unmentioned  it could be extensive, or relatively minor. Further, the text of the amendment clearly states that the purpose of the amendment is to restore the Everglades to its original condition, not to save it from peril. A voter responding to the emotional language of the title could well be misled as to the contents and purpose of the proposed amendment. A proposed amendment cannot fly under false colors; this one does. Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d at 156. The summary too is misleading. It provides that the sugarcane industry, which polluted the Everglades, is to help to pay to clean up pollution. By using the phrase to help to pay, the summary gives the reader the impression that entities other than the sugarcane industry will be sharing the expense of cleanup. Yet, nothing in the text of the proposed amendment indicates that this would be the case. The text implies just the opposite  it calls for the levying of a fee on the first processors of sugarcane exclusively. A voter perusing the summary could well be misled on this material point. Finally, the summary more closely resembles political rhetoric than it does an accurate and informative synopsis of the meaning and effect of the proposed amendment. As this Court stated in Evans: [T]he ballot summary is no place for subjective evaluation of special impact. The ballot summary should tell the voter the legal effect of the amendment and no more. The political motivation behind a given change must be propounded outside the voting booth. Evans, 457 So.2d at 1355.