Opinion ID: 1704745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the accuracy requirement

Text: A court may declare a proposed constitutional amendment invalid only if the record shows that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective; [9] the standard of review for a pure question of law is de novo. [10] Proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution may originate in any of several sources, including the Legislature, [11] revision commission, [12] citizen initiative, [13] or constitutional convention. [14] Regardless of source, a proposed amendment ultimately must be submitted to the electors for approval at the next general election. Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, states: SECTION 5. Amendment or revision election. (a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, initiative petition or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourth of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing. Art. XI, § 5, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). Implicit in this provision is the requirement that the proposed amendment be accurately represented on the ballot; otherwise, voter approval would be a nullity. [15] This accuracy requirement, which applies to all proposed constitutional amendments, has been codified by the Legislature in chapter 101, Florida Statutes (1997). Because the text of a proposed amendment oftentimes is detailed and lengthy, section 101.161 provides that only a title and brief summary of the amendment's chief purpose may be listed on the ballot. The actual text of the amendment does not appear: 101.161 Referenda; ballots. (1) Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot after the list of candidates, followed by the word yes and also by the word no, and shall be styled in such a manner that a yes vote will indicate approval of the proposal and a no vote will indicate rejection. The wording of the substance of the amendment or other public measure and the ballot title to appear on the ballot shall be embodied in the joint resolution, constitutional revision commission proposal, constitutional convention proposal, taxation and budget reform commission proposal, or enabling resolution or ordinance. The substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of. § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). Significantly, both the ballot title and summary are prepared by the amendment's sponsor. [16] Because voters will not have the actual text of the amendment before them in the voting booth when they enter their votes, the accuracy requirement is of paramount importance for the ballot title and summary: As previously stated, section 101.161 requires that the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure. The requirement for proposed constitutional amendment ballots is the same as for all ballots, i.e., that the voter should not be misled and that he have an opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote.... All that the Constitution requires or that the law compels or ought to compel is that the voter have notice of that which he must decide .... What the law requires is that the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot. Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 154-55 (Fla.1982) (emphasis added). In practice, the accuracy requirement in article XI, section 5, functions as a kind of truth in packaging law for the ballot.