Opinion ID: 1708173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: this court's inquiry

Text: When the Court renders an advisory opinion concerning a proposed constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, no lower court ruling exists for the Court to review. Therefore, no conventional standard of review applies. Instead, the Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2003). See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d 888, 890-91 (Fla.2000). In addressing these two issues, the Court's inquiry is governed by several general principles. First, we will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment. See, e.g., Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d at 891. Second, [t]he Court must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people. Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982). Specifically, where citizen initiatives are concerned, the Court has no authority to inject itself in the process, unless the laws governing the process have been `clearly and conclusively' violated. See Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d 491, 498-99 (Fla.2002); see also Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d at 891 (In order for the Court to invalidate a proposed amendment, the record must show that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective.).