Opinion ID: 2534868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirements for Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Text: The Florida Constitution gives the Legislature authority to propose amendments for submission to the electorate. See art. XI, § 1, Fla. Const. Article XI, section 1, provides that the Legislature may propose an amendment to the Florida Constitution by a joint resolution agreed to by three-fifths of the membership of each house of the legislature. Id. Then the proposed constitutional amendment must be submitted to the electors at the next general election. Art. XI, § 5(a), Fla. Const. Implicit in this provision is the requirement that the proposed amendment be accurately represented on the ballot; otherwise, voter approval would be a nullity. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 12. [T]he accuracy requirement in article XI, section 5, functions as a kind of `truth in packaging' law for the ballot. Id. at 13. The accuracy requirement applies to all proposed constitutional amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature. Id. at 16. The Court has recognized that [a]lthough the constitution does not expressly authorize judicial review of amendments proposed by the Legislature, this Court long ago explained that the courts are the proper forum in which to litigate the validity of such amendments. Id. at 13-14 (footnote omitted). Specifically, the Court has stated: Under our system of constitutional government regulated by law, a determination of whether an amendment to the Constitution has been validly proposed and agreed to by the Legislature depends upon the fact of substantial compliance or noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of the existing Constitution as to how such amendments shall be proposed and agreed to, and such determination is necessarily required to be in a judicial forum where the Constitution provides no other means of authoritatively determining such questions. Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963, 966 (1912)). This Court has traditionally accorded a measure of deference to constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature. Id. at 21. However, that deference is not boundless, for the constitution imposes strict minimum requirements that apply across-the-board to all constitutional amendments, including those arising in the Legislature. Id. at 14. The accuracy requirement in article XI, section 5, imposes a strict minimum standard for ballot clarity. This requirement plays no favoritesit applies across-the-board to all constitutional amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature. The purpose of this requirement is above reproachit is to ensure that each voter will cast a ballot based on the full truth. To function effectivelyand to remain viablea constitutional democracy must require no less. Id. at 21 (emphasis omitted). Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2009), is a codification of the accuracy requirement implicit in article XI, section 5 of the Florida Constitution. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amend. of Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 902 So.2d 763, 770 (Fla.2005). Thus, section 101.161(1) provides that the substance of a proposed constitutional amendment must be printed on the ballot in clear and unambiguous language. In reviewing the validity of ballot language submitted to the voters for a proposed constitutional amendment, this Court does not consider or review the substantive merits or the wisdom of the amendment. See Fla. Dep't of State v. Slough, 992 So.2d 142, 147 (Fla.2008); Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 155 (Fla. 1982). Rather, our task is to determine whether the ballot language sets forth the substance of the amendment in a manner that satisfies the requirements of section 101.161, Florida Statutes, and article XI, section 5, of the Florida Constitution. The purpose of a ballot title and summary is to provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot. Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d 563, 566 (Fla.1998) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen.-Fee on Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So.2d 1124, 1127 (Fla.1996)). To comply with the requirements of law, the ballot language must state the chief purpose of the proposed amendment. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 18. This Court has explained that the ballot must advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot. Askew, 421 So.2d at 155 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hill v. Milander, 72 So.2d 796, 798 (Fla.1954)). While the ballot title and summary must state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure, they need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. See Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986). The ballot language must, however, give the voter fair notice of the decision he [or she] must make. Askew, 421 So.2d at 155. A court may declare a proposed constitutional amendment invalid only if the record shows that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 11. In assessing the ballot title and summary, the reviewing court should ask two questions: First, whether the ballot title and summary fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment, and second, whether the language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public. Slough, 992 So.2d at 147 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d 210, 213-14 (Fla.2007)). This Court presumes that the average voter has a certain amount of common understanding and knowledge. See Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Protect People from the Health Hazards of Second-Hand Smoke, 814 So.2d 415, 419 (Fla.2002). This evaluation also includes consideration of the amendment's true meaning, and ramifications. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 16 (quoting Askew, 421 So.2d at 156). The unifying principle for all proposed constitutional changes is that 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 v. Smith, 338 So.2d 825, 829 (Fla.1976). The proposed amendment must stand on its own merits and not be disguised as something else. Askew, 421 So.2d at 156. A ballot title and summary cannot either `fly under false colors' or `hide the ball' as to the amendment's true effect. Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 16.