Opinion ID: 1597538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Above all, the Florida Constitution embodies the right of self-determination for all Florida's citizens. This Court traditionally has been reluctant to interfere with this right by barring citizens from formulating their own organic law: There is no lawful reason why the electors of this State should not have the right to determine the manner in which the Constitution may be amended. This is the most sanctified area in which a court can exercise power. Sovereignty resides in the people and the electors have a right to approve or reject a proposed amendment to the organic law of this State, limited only by those instances where there is an entire failure to comply with a plain and essential requirement of [the law]. Pope v. Gray, 104 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 1958). This deference is especially appropriate in the case of proposed constitutional amendments arising through the citizen initiative process. Because such amendments often are initiated by ad hoc groups of concerned lay persons without formal legal training or prior experience in the field, such amendments are reviewed under a forgiving standard and will be submitted to the voters if at all possible: [A] court's duty is to uphold the proposal unless it can be shown to be clearly and conclusively defective. Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Fla., 363 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 1978). When determining the validity of an amendment arising via citizen initiative petition, our inquiry is limited to two issues: (1) whether the petition 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 (2000). [4] We do not address the merits of the amendment. [5]