188 So. 3d 822
Fla.2016Background
- Attorney General sought this Court’s advisory opinion on a citizen initiative titled “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice,” proposed by Consumers for Smart Solar, Inc., to add Section 29 to Article X of the Florida Constitution.
- Proposed amendment would (a) establish a constitutional right for electricity consumers to own or lease solar equipment on their property for personal use, (b) preserve state and local authority to protect consumer rights and public health/safety/welfare and to prevent non-solar consumers from subsidizing backup power and grid access, and (c) define key terms (consumer, solar equipment, lease, backup power, electric grid, electric utility).
- Ballot title: “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice.” Ballot summary: describes establishment of right and retention of government regulatory abilities; Financial Impact Statement: no expected change in state/local revenues or costs.
- Court’s review limited to (1) single-subject requirement under article XI, §3; (2) ballot title and summary compliance with §101.161(1); and (3) Financial Impact Statement compliance with §100.371(5).
- Majority concluded the amendment: satisfies single-subject (logical oneness: right + regulation), ballot title/summary are not clearly and conclusively defective, and Financial Impact Statement complies; approved amendment and financial statement for the ballot.
- Dissent (Pariente, J., joined by Quince and Perry) argued the title/summary are misleading because they (1) obscure that the amendment mostly preserves status quo and elevates existing regulatory powers to constitutional level, (2) omit that existing statutory or constitutional property rights already allow solar ownership/use, and (3) use ambiguous terms (e.g., “subsidize,” “choice”) that could mislead voters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-subject: Does the amendment embrace one subject and matter directly connected? | Sponsor: Establishing a right to own/lease solar and preserving government regulatory power are components of a single, coherent purpose. | Opponents: Combines disparate subjects; risks logrolling and could perform functions of multiple government branches. | Held: Valid — amendment has a logical/natural oneness; not impermissible logrolling; does not substantially perform multiple branches’ functions. |
| Ballot title and summary: Do they fairly inform voters and avoid being misleading under §101.161(1)? | Sponsor: Title/summary clearly state chief purpose (establishes right and retains government authority). | Opponents: Title/summary mislead by implying a new right and hiding that it elevates existing rights and preserves status quo; terms like “choice” and “subsidize” are ambiguous. | Held: Valid — title/summary fairly inform voters and are not clearly and conclusively defective. |
| Financial Impact Statement: Is it clear, limited to fiscal effects, and ≤75 words under §100.371(5)? | Sponsor: Statement (no expected revenue/cost change) complies; opponents did not contest. | Opponents: No challenge. | Held: Valid — statement is clear, unambiguous, 22 words, and limited to fiscal effects. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So.3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (deferential standard to citizen initiatives; avoid striking unless clearly and conclusively defective)
- In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions, 181 So.3d 471 (Fla. 2015) (single-subject analysis; examples of an initiative that created rights while preserving regulatory role)
- In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply, 177 So.3d 235 (Fla. 2015) (prior solar-related advisory opinion; caution about interaction with state policy)
- Fairness Initiative Requiring Legis. Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions & Exclusions Serve a Pub. Purpose, 880 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2004) (logrolling and disparate-subjects guidance)
- Evans v. Firestone, 457 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984) (ballot summary defective for failing to disclose elevation of an existing right to constitutional status)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (ballot summary defective for omissions that mislead voters about existing prohibitions or rights)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Fee on Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1996) (purpose of §101.161 is to provide fair notice so voters can cast informed ballots)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Protect People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease, & Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 2006) (logrolling/limitations on combining provisions)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Casino Authorization, Taxation and Regulation, 656 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1995) (ballot summaries can be defective for omissions that create false impressions)