Opinion ID: 2534868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Amendment 8 Complies with the Requirements of Law

Text: We begin by noting that the ballot title and summary clearly and unambiguously explain the text of the constitutional amendment. Appellants do not contest this. The ballot title clearly sets forth the substance of the amendment: REVISION OF THE CLASS SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The ballot summary unambiguously explains the existing class size requirements as well as how the required class sizes would change. Appellants also agree that the ballot summary discloses a legislative funding obligation upon passage of the proposed amendment. Indeed, the summary states that it shall be the Legislature's responsibility to fund this amendment by stating that the amendment requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment. Although the Appellants agree that the ballot summary unambiguously explains the text of the amendment, they contend that it is defective because it fails to state that the amendment's chief purpose and effect is to reduce the amount of state funding for education and, further, that the ballot summary is misleading for its failure to disclose the financial impact. Essentially, Appellants' contention is that the summary is defective for failing to explain that this amendment will substantially reduce the amount of the state's current constitutional obligation to fund the existing class size restrictions. We disagree that the failure to address the effect on state class size funding renders the ballot summary defective. Although the dollar amount required to fund the class size requirements will be affected by the change in the formula for class sizes, the constitutional obligation of the state to provide sufficient funds for the revised class size requirements is not being altered. Under both the current provision and under Amendment 8, Floridians would have the same right to have the state provide sufficient funds for the mandated class sizes. As stated by the trial court: Both the 2002 amendment to Article IX, Section 1, and Amendment 8 have as the stated purpose the establishment of a maximum class size, and the obligation of the Legislature to fund whatever maximum class size the voters elect. The voters will decide what the class size will be, and Amendment 8 is not confusing or misleading as to that being the decision the voter makes. Amendment 8, if passed, would not alter the Legislature's duty to fund the required class size, nor does it shift any funding obligation to the school boards. The ballot summary is not misleading in that respect in that it specifically provides and requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment. Further, under both the current provision and under Amendment 8, Floridians would have the same right to have the Legislature make adequate provision to ensure that there are a sufficient number of classrooms for the required class sizes. Thus, this case is unlike Armstrong and Askew, where we struck proposed amendments for failing to disclose that they would diminish an existing constitutional right. Although the logical effect of increasing the maximum number of students will be to reduce the dollar amount of state class size funding, this effect flows naturally from the chief purposeto revise and relax class sizes while providing that the Legislature has the attendant funding obligation. Further, we note that a voter would be able to draw a common-sense conclusion from a review of the ballot summary that the amount of funding needed to sufficiently fund the revised class sizes will likely be reduced. Accordingly, we conclude that the ballot language gives the voter fair notice of the decision he must make, Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 15, and is not defective for failing to state that the passage of Amendment 8 may affect the amount of state class size funding. Appellants also argue that the ballot language indicating that the Legislature is required to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by the amendment is affirmatively misleading because it hides from voters the fact that funding levels will actually be reduced. We conclude that the use of the word maintain in the ballot summary is not misleading. Rather, it accurately conveys that the Legislature, not the school district, is the entity responsible for continuously providing funding for the class sizes required by the amendment and does not carry an implication that the amount of funding will not be reduced as a result of the amendment. Finally, Appellants contend that the summary is misleading for failing to mention that the constitution currently mandates the Legislature to provide funding to reduce class sizes. Thus, they assert, the current amendment could mislead a voter into believing that Amendment 8 would shift the funding responsibility for class sizes from the local school districts to the Legislature. Appellants argue that as a result of this omission, some voters are likely to believe that their local school districts are currently forced to fund the requirements and thus a favorable vote on the amendment is necessary to lessen the burden on local school districts or to avoid an increase in local property taxes. Our test in determining the validity of the ballot title and summary is not what some voters might believe but rather whether the ballot title and summary provide the voter with fair notice of the decision he [or she] must make. Askew, 421 So.2d at 155. The voters must be able to comprehend the sweep of each proposal from a fair notification in the proposition itself that is neither less nor more extensive than it appears to be. Smathers, 338 So.2d at 827. The Court will presume that the average voter has a certain amount of common understanding and knowledge. See Second-Hand Smoke, 814 So.2d at 419. Although there are cases where this Court has held that a ballot summary was defective for failing to mention an existing constitutional obligation, see, e.g., Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 17; Fla. Dep't of State v. Fla. State Conference of NAACP Branches, 43 So.3d 662, 668 (Fla.2010), we conclude that, here, the failure to mention the Legislature's existing funding obligation does not render Amendment 8's ballot summary defective. The ballot summary is not affirmatively misleading: there is nothing in the ballot summary that would imply or affirmatively convey that the local school districts currently have the funding obligation.