ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING in Florida. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voter Control of Gambling in Florida (FIS)
215 So. 3d 1209
| Fla. | 2017Background
- The Florida Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to review the validity of a citizen initiative titled “Voter Control of Gambling in Florida,” proposed under art. XI, § 3 of the Florida Constitution.
- The Initiative would add a new section to Article X requiring that authorization of “casino gambling” occur only via citizens’ constitutional initiative; it defines “casino gambling,” preserves legislative authority to regulate/tax gaming, and excepts tribal compacts under federal law.
- The ballot title: “Voter Control of Gambling in Florida.” The 71‑word summary explains the Initiative makes voter approval via art. XI, § 3 the exclusive method to authorize casino gambling and notes affected articles and the tribal-compact clarification.
- The Financial Impact Estimating Conference prepared a 45‑word statement saying the Initiative’s fiscal effects on state and local revenues/costs cannot be determined because of unknown effects on unapproved gambling operations.
- The Court’s review was limited to (1) whether the Initiative satisfies the single‑subject requirement of art. XI, § 3, and (2) whether the ballot title/summary and financial impact statement meet statutory clarity and word‑limit requirements.
- The Court approved placement of the Initiative on the ballot. A dissenting opinion argued the Initiative is misleading and violates the single‑subject rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single‑subject compliance | Sponsor: The Initiative has one logical purpose — require voter authorization for casino gambling; definitions and severability are directly connected. | Opponents: The measure bundles multiple effects (e.g., impacts on existing slot-authorizations, tribal agreements) and thus engages in logrolling/affects multiple branches. | Approved: Court found a natural oneness of purpose; definitions and self‑execution are directly connected; it does not substantially perform functions of multiple branches. |
| Ballot title & summary clarity | Sponsor: Title and summary fairly and unambiguously state chief purpose and note affected articles/tribal-compact nonconflict. | Opponents: Summary fails to disclose whether the Initiative applies retroactively or how it affects existing statutory/constitutional gaming authorizations; “control” vs “authorize” is misleading. | Approved: Title (≤15 words) and summary (≤75 words) fairly inform voters; do not affirmatively mislead when read together; exhaustive detail not required. |
| Financial impact statement sufficiency | Sponsor: Statement appropriately explains indeterminacy of fiscal effect given unknown future voter approvals. | Opponents: (No party argued it was misleading) but challenged clarity. | Approved: 45‑word statement meets the statutory word limit and is sufficiently clear though indefinite. |
| Retroactivity / effect on existing gambling | Opponents: Ballot summary fails to alert voters that Initiative may affect existing authorizations (e.g., county slot referenda, statutory licenses). | Sponsor: These concerns relate to legal effects if adopted, not to ballot clarity; summary adequately notes affected articles and tribal-compact preservation. | Not decided on merits: Court limited review to ballot clarity and single‑subject and declined to rule on retroactivity or post‑enactment legal effects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So.3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (sets review limits and standards for initiative validity)
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot title/summary must not be affirmatively misleading)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non‑Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (single‑subject and review scope principles for initiatives)
- Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2008) (ballot language cannot ‘hide the ball’ about an amendment’s true effect)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (summary may be defective if it omits material facts necessary to avoid misleading voters)