History
  • No items yet
midpage
215 So. 3d 1202
Fla.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Sponsor "Floridians for a Fair Democracy" proposed a constitutional amendment to automatically restore voting rights to most persons convicted of felonies upon completion of all terms of sentence (including parole and probation), except those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses, who would remain disqualified unless the Governor and Cabinet restore rights case-by-case.
  • The Attorney General requested an advisory opinion from the Florida Supreme Court on the initiative’s validity under article XI, section 3 and on whether the financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) complies with section 100.371, Fla. Stat.
  • The ballot title: “Voter Restoration Amendment.” The ballot summary (62 words) describes automatic restoration after sentence completion and the exclusion for murder/sexual offenders, with case-by-case restoration by Governor and Cabinet.
  • The FIEC financial impact statement (74 words) said the amendment would likely increase state and local costs due to more felons registering to vote but could not determine precise cost or revenue effects.
  • The Court applied its deferential advisory-opinion standard limited to (1) single-subject compliance and (2) ballot title/summary clarity, and also independently reviewed the financial impact statement for statutory compliance.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Single‑subject: Does the amendment embrace one subject? Sponsor: Amendment has a single purpose—restore voting rights to felons after sentence completion, excluding murder/sex offenders; exclusion is connected. AG: (implicit) potential concerns about multiple subjects or logrolling. Held: Complies with single‑subject requirement; logical oneness of purpose; exclusion is directly connected and avoids logrolling.
Substantial alteration of government functions Sponsor: Amendment narrows Governor/Cabinet role (only for murder/sex cases) and does not substantially alter branches. AG: (implicit) could change executive/cabinet functions. Held: Does not substantially alter or perform multiple branches’ functions; any governmental effect is not catastrophic.
Ballot title & summary clarity (§101.161) Sponsor: Title and summary fairly and unambiguously state chief purpose; within word limits. AG: (implicit) potential for misleading or incomplete summary. Held: Title and summary satisfy statutory requirements; they fairly inform voters and are not misleading.
Financial impact statement compliance (§100.371) Sponsor: FIEC statement meets the 75‑word limit and need only estimate probable state/local cost effects. AG: Requested Court review to ensure compliance with statute. Held: Financial impact statement complies—under 75 words, limited to state/local cost/revenue effects, clear that costs likely increase but precise amounts indeterminate.

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 for citizen initiatives and review scope)
  • In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2015) (single‑subject and ballot summary review principles)
  • Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Rights of Elec. Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice, 188 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2016) (clarity of title/summary and effects on government are not dispositive alone)
  • Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation, 123 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2013) (narrow review of financial impact statements and acceptance of indeterminate fiscal conclusions)
  • Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non‑Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (single‑subject test prevents logrolling and protects voter choice)
  • Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, 769 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2000) (example that a single substantive purpose can encompass multiple connected provisions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTING RESTORATION AMENDMENT. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voting Restoration Amendment (FIS)
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Apr 20, 2017
Citations: 215 So. 3d 1202; SC16-1785; SC16-1981
Docket Number: SC16-1785; SC16-1981
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
Log In
    ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTING RESTORATION AMENDMENT. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voting Restoration Amendment (FIS), 215 So. 3d 1202