Opinion ID: 1572909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: review of proposed amendment

Text: When the Court renders an advisory opinion concerning a proposed constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, the Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the amendment itself violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the clarity requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2008). The Court will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment and must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Minimum Wage Amendment, 880 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.2004) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)).
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, sets forth the single-subject requirement for a proposed constitutional amendment arising via the citizen initiative process. The single-subject rule is intended to prevent an amendment from engaging in either of two practices: (a) logrolling, or (b) substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of state government. A proposed amendment meets this test when it `may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme. Unity of object and plan is the universal test....' Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fairness Initiative, 880 So.2d 630, 634 (Fla.2004) ( Fairness Initiative ) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla.1984)). The Smarter Growth amendment does not engage in logrolling. Like the proposed amendment discussed in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 902 So.2d 763, 766 (Fla. 2005) ( Land Use Plans 2005 ), this proposed amendment is limited to the single subject of providing for local referenda regarding the adoption and amendment of local growth management plans, albeit in more limited circumstances than contemplated by the Land Use Plans initiative. It does not combine any unrelated provisions. Id. Also like the proposed amendment reviewed in Land Use Plans 2005, the Smarter Growth amendment does not substantially alter or perform the functions of multiple branches of state government because all of its provisions pertain only to the local government legislative process of enacting and amending local growth management plans. The amendment does not involve other levels of government. This Court has also considered whether a proposed amendment would substantially affect multiple constitutional provisions as part of its single-subject analysis. See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 490 (Fla.1994). [T]he possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Ltd. Casinos, 644 So.2d 71, 74 (Fla.1994) (citing Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. EnglishThe Official Language of Fla., 520 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1988)). The Smarter Growth amendment will substantially affect article II, section 7 of the Florida Constitution. However, contrary to Hometown Democracy's arguments, the proposed amendment would only interact with, not substantially affect, other provisions of the Florida Constitution. In sum, the proposed amendment complies with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.
Section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the requirements for the ballot title and summary of a proposed constitutional amendment: [T]he 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. (2008). This Court has explained that [I]n conducting its inquiry into the validity of a proposed amendment under section 101.161(1), the Court asks two questions. First, the Court asks whether the ballot title and summary ... fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment. Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d at 497. Second, the Court asks whether the language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d 563, 566 (Fla.1998). Fairness Initiative, 880 So.2d at 635-36. While the ballot title and summary must accurately inform voters of the content of the proposed amendment, this Court has held that [i]t is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose. In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1341 (Fla.1994) (quoting Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986)). The ballot title and summary in this case comply with the word-length limitations of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2008). Thus, the issue for this Court is whether the ballot title and summary clearly and unambiguously state the chief purpose of the amendment without misleading voters. The ballot title purports that the proposed amendment would give Citizens the Right to Decide Local Growth Management Plan Changes. When read in conjunction with the ballot summary, the Right to Decide language in the title does not misrepresent the chief purpose and legal impact of the amendment. The second sentence of the summary clarifies that to trigger a referendum on the adoption or amendment of a local growth management plan, ten percent of the voters in the potentially affected local government must sign a petition calling for a referendum. This sentence accurately conveys the purpose stated in the amendment text, which is to provide a limited opportunity for voters to approve or disapprove plans or amendments resulting from growth management and land use planning laws. See Advisory Op. to Att'y General re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So.2d 367, 371 (Fla.2000) (finding term statewide used in ballot title not misleading because summary accurately explained that proposed amendment would require system linking Florida's five largest urban areas). Furthermore, we reject Hometown Democracy's argument that the ballot title and summary are misleading because they do not inform voters of the details of the petition process, such as the requirements that the voter initiating the petition publicly disclose certain personal information and that the petition can only be signed by registered voters at certain government offices within a sixty-day period. We find the instant ballot title and summary distinguishable from those found to omit material information in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race in Public Education, 778 So.2d 888 (Fla.2000) ( Treating People Differently ); and Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d 563 (Fla.1998) ( Health Care Providers ). In Treating People Differently, the Court found that the ballot titles and summaries, which stated that the proposed amendments would bar the government from treating people differently based on race and end governmental discrimination, were misleading because they falsely implied that no constitutional provision addressing differential treatment existed at that time and that the government was then practicing discrimination. 778 So.2d at 898. The ballot titles and summaries failed to disclose that the proposed amendment would eliminate existing protections granted to victims of discrimination by the Florida Constitution. Id. at 894. In Health Care Providers, the Court found that the title and summary, which stated that the amendment would establish the right of citizens to choose health care providers, violated section 101.161 because in reality the amendment would likely make it more difficult for some to choose a health care provider by prohibiting insurers from contracting with insured individuals on the issue of health care providers. 705 So.2d at 565-66. The current ballot title and summary do not mislead voters into thinking that the amendment would extend a right to decide while in actuality the amendment would effectively restrict opportunities for voters to decide local growth management plans. The proposed amendment states that it will operate [i]n addition to any power or ability of voters to participate in growth management planning processes provided by this Section or by general law. Thus, the proposed amendment, even with its petition requirements, will not have the effect of limiting rather than expanding existing opportunities for voters to become involved in the adoption and amendment of local growth management plans. We find the instant proposed amendment analogous to the amendment reviewed in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla. 1991), where the Court held that the summary was not misleading because it was not a situation in which the ballot summary conceal[ed] a conflict with an existing provision. Because the Smarter Growth amendment will not conflict with or restrict any existing rights to subject local growth management plans to local referenda, the lack of detail concerning the petition process does not render the title and summary misleading. In conclusion, we conclude that the ballot title and summary are not materially misleading due to omission. The ballot title and summary satisfy the requirements of section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2008). [1]
The financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) reads as follows: The direct impact of this amendment on local government expenditures cannot be determined precisely. Local governments will incur significant costs to establish and administer the new Florida Growth Management Initiative petition process. Additional costs will be incurred for petition notification and signature collection, as well as ballot preparation and associated expenses for conducting any required referendum. The direct impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant. There will be no direct impact on government revenues. This Court's review of financial impact statements is narrow. The Court has limited itself only to address whether the statement is clear, unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-five words, and is limited to address the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to the state or local governments. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 963 So.2d 210, 214 (Fla. 2007) ( Land Use Plans 2007 ). The financial impact statement in this case is exactly seventy-five words. Thus, the issues for the Court are whether the statement is clear and unambiguous and whether it is limited to addressing the estimated increase or decrease in revenues or costs. The text of the Smarter Growth amendment states that its purpose or intended effect is to provide a limited opportunity for voters to approve or disapprove these plans or amendments and to limit such referenda to situations where a sufficient number of persons file a petition seeking such a referendum during a set period of time. The financial effect of the Smarter Growth amendment is difficult to quantify because to a large degree the increase or decrease in costs due to the proposed amendment will depend on how frequently counties and cities create new growth management plans or amend existing ones and on how frequently voters in the affected areas decide to avail themselves of the petition process that would be created by the amendment. As directed by this Court in Land Use Plans 2007, the FIEC acknowledged in this financial impact statement that the ultimate cost of this proposed amendment is dependent on voter action, stating [a]dditional costs will be incurred for petition notification and signature collection, as well as ballot preparation and associated expenses for conducting any required referendum. The FIEC also delineated the noncontingent cost of establishing and administering the initiative process, stating that [l]ocal governments will incur significant costs to establish and administer the new Florida Growth Management Initiative petition process. Overall, the financial impact statement is necessarily indefinite but not unclear or ambiguous.