Opinion ID: 1570583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Alternative Means Already Exist to Address Alleged Forgery and Fraud in the Signature-Gathering Process

Text: The State of Florida has already provided alternative mechanisms through which alleged fraud in the signature-gathering process may be discouraged, discovered, and remedied. For example, chapter 98, Florida Statutes (2007), creates a comprehensive system of voter-registration list maintenance to ensure that only eligible individuals remain registered as Florida electors and that, inter alia, deceased individuals, fictitious persons, mentally incapacitated persons, and convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored are promptly removed from the statewide voter registration system. Similarly, section 99.097, Florida Statutes (2007), provides for neutral verification of initiative-petition signatures by the supervisors of elections, and section 100.371(3)(a)-(d), which is not affected by our decision today, states that supervisors of elections may only verify a signed initiative-petition form if the form contains(a) the elector's original signature, (b) the date on which the elector signed the form, and (c) the elector's name, street address, county, and voter-registration number or birth date and if, at the time of signing, (d) the elector was a qualified, registered elector. To combat the risk of fraud or forgery, Florida's Election Code provides that it is a first-degree misdemeanor to sign an initiative-petition form using another person's name or a fictitious name and further provides that persons who aid, abet, or advise another concerning violation of the Code shall be punished as principals and that co-conspirators and confederates shall be punished as if they directly committed the relevant offense(s). See §§ 104.091, 104.185(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). To facilitate the investigation of such offenses, section 104.43 grants any qualified elector the right to request a special grand-jury investigation preceding any election to determine whether any provision of the Florida Election Code has been violated, and provides that if sufficient grounds exist, the grand jury may issue indictments. In addition to the criminal offenses present in chapter 104, Florida Statutes (2007), Florida's general criminal law, which is equally applicable to fraud and forgery, provides that forgery of a public record with an intent to injure or defraud any person is a third-degree felony, and that knowingly making a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty is a second-degree misdemeanor. § 837.06, Fla. Stat. (2007). With regard to prosecution and enforcement efforts: section 16.56(1)(a)12., Florida Statutes (2007), vests the Office of Statewide Prosecution with concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any criminal offense involving . . . issue petition activities; section 106.25(1), Florida Statutes (2007), vests the Florida Elections Commission with concurrent authority to investigate violations of chapter 104; section 106.25(6) obligates the appropriate state attorney to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute complaints referred by the Florida Elections Commission; section 106.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that [c]riminal proceedings for violations of . . . chapter 104 may be brought in the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction [and that] any such action . . . shall be advanced on the docket of the court . . . and put ahead of all other actions; section 106.265, Florida Statutes (2007), provides civil penalties for violations of chapter 104; and section 106.27(2) provides for injunctive relief against violations of chapter 104. Finally, the judicial branch provides at least two mechanisms that directly promote ballot integrity and the reduction of fraud. First, well before any referendum, this Court reviews ballot titles and summaries to ensure compliance with the single-subject limitation and to guarantee that Florida's electors are not misled with regard to the true effect of a [proposed] amendment or revision, [18] and such titles and summaries are the primary materials presented to an elector upon a request for his or her signature on an initiative-petition form. See art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const.; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.; §§ 15.21(3), 16.061(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Fla. Admin. R. 1S-2.009(2)(d) (requiring that initiative-petition forms contain a  ballot title that shall not exceed 15 words and [a] ballot summary of the proposed amendment . . . that shall not exceed 75 words in length (emphasis supplied)). No similar judicial review occurs concerning the revocation process at issue in this case. Second, forged and fraudulent signatures may not be used to satisfy the mandatory signature requirements of article XI, section 3, [19] and we have held that  neither verification by the supervisors [of elections] nor certification by the secretary of state immunizes [an initiative] proposal from a judicial action claiming [that] the necessary constitutional requirements have not properly been met. Tax Relief, 386 So.2d at 567 (emphasis supplied). Thus, at a minimum, there is also a judicial mechanism through which initiative proposals that depend upon forgery or fraud may be excluded from the ballot. Moreover, nothing in our opinion today should be construed as affecting the presumably inherent right of Florida's electors to provide testimony and properly authenticated admissible evidence that their purported signatures were forged or procured through fraud. Cf. art. I, § 1, Fla. Const. (All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.). Therefore, we hold that signature revocation is neither a neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation of petition-circulation and voting procedure, which is explicitly or implicitly contemplated by article XI, nor a process necessary for ballot integrity.