Opinion ID: 1659480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proposed Property Rights Amendment

Text: This proposal seeks to amend article I, section 2, of the Florida Constitution. The full text of the proposed amendment provides: Insert the underlined words in Article I, Section 2: Basic Rights  All natural persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life [and] liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion or physical handicap. Any exercise of the police power, excepting the administration and enforcement of criminal laws, which damages the value of a vested private property right, or any interest therein, shall entitle the owner to full compensation determined by jury trial with a jury of not fewer than six persons and without prior resort to administrative remedies. This amendment shall take effect the day after approval by the voters. The ballot title for the proposed amendment is: Property Rights: Should Government Compensate Owners When Damaging The Value Of Homes Or Other Property? The summary for the proposed amendment provides: This amendment entitles an owner to full compensation when government action damages the value of the owner's home, farm, or other vested private property right or interest therein. Excepts administration and enforcement of criminal laws. Owners  including natural persons and businesses  are entitled to have full compensation determined by six-member jury trial without first having to go through administrative proceedings. This amendment becomes effective the day after voter approval. The Attorney General and other opponents of the initiative suggest that this proposal will substantially alter the ability of multiple governmental entities to perform their functions and that the ballot title and summary of this initiative are misleading and ambiguous. In response, the proponents of the initiative assert that there is no single-subject violation and state that, although the Property Rights initiative will affect multiple branches of government, it will not substantially alter or perform the constitutional functions of any of them because government is, in their words, always free to refrain from actions which would damage vested rights and thus avoid any compensation claim. We find that the Property Rights initiative violates the single-subject requirement because it substantially alters the functions of multiple branches of government. Cf. Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d at 1340 (Although a proposal may affect several branches of government and still pass muster, no single proposal can substantially alter or perform the functions of multiple branches... .). This initiative not only substantially alters the functions of the executive and legislative branches of state government, it also has a very distinct and substantial affect on each local governmental entity. The ability to enact zoning laws, to require development plans, to have comprehensive plans for a community, to have uniform ingress and egress along major thoroughfares, to protect the public from diseased animals or diseased plants, to control and manage water rights, and to control or manage storm-water drainage and flood waters, all would be substantially affected by this provision. We agree with the opponents of the initiative that the ability of the legislature to comply with the directive in article II, section 7 (It shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty. Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise.), is substantially affected. We also note that the initiative transfers all administrative remedies for police power actions that damage private property interests from the executive branch to the judicial branch. Given this substantial effect on the executive, legislative, and local branches of government, we find that the Property Rights initiative violates the single-subject requirement. [3] We have made clear that the ballot title and summary must advise the electorate of the true meaning and ramifications of the amendment and, in particular, must be accurate and informative. See, e.g., Smith, 606 So.2d at 621. The Property Rights ballot title and summary do not properly advise the voters, and it is not accurate and informative. This proposal would result in a major change in the function of government because it would require all entities of government to provide compensation from tax revenue to owners or businesses for damages allegedly caused to their property by the government's exercise of its police powers. Because most true police power actions of government are not now compensable, the fiscal impact of this proposal would be substantial. The proponents of the initiative acknowledge that the police powers affected by this initiative are broad and, in their words, take any number of forms, such as flooding, deprivation of access, environmental regulation and permitting, zoning ordinances, and development exactions, among others. The ballot title and summary are devoid of any mention of these consequences. The Attorney General suggests that, while the summary could lead a voter to believe that the initiative is limited to real property interests, the text of the initiative is not so limited. He notes that the initiative's language would mandate compensation for the shareholders of a corporation whenever the state has successfully prosecuted an antitrust suit because that suit would adversely affect the value of the company's stock. The Attorney General further notes that the term owner, as used in the summary of the proposed initiative, includes natural persons and businesses; yet, the text of the proposed initiative is silent as to the meaning of the term owner and includes no reference to businesses. He concludes that, as a result of these circumstances, the ballot title and summary are misleading. We agree with the Attorney General and find that the ballot title and summary are misleading and ambiguous. Accordingly, we find that the proposed Property Rights initiative violates both the single-subject and ballot title and summary requirements and must be stricken from the ballot.