Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections, 288 So.3d 524

The Florida Attorney General petitioned the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on an initiative titled “Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections,” sponsored by Florida Citizen Voters.
The proposed amendment would modify article VI, section 2 of the Florida Constitution by replacing the inclusionary term “Every” with exclusionary language making clear that “Only a citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector….”
The ballot title: “Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections.” The summary states that only U.S. citizens 18+, permanent Florida residents, and registered voters shall be qualified to vote.
The Sponsor submitted a brief in support; no briefs were filed in opposition. The Court dispensed with oral argument.
The proposed amendment contained a scrivener’s error regarding the placement/striking of the word “citizen”; the Court treated this as de minimis and not confusing to voters.
The Court applied its usual deferential review, limited to (1) the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, and (2) statutory clarity requirements for ballot title and summary under section 101.161(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendment complies with article XI, §3 single-subject rule	Sponsor: The change is a single, minor modification to voter-eligibility language that constitutionalizes existing statutory language	No opposition submitted	Court: Amendment meets single-subject requirement; not logrolling; has a logical oneness of purpose
Whether the ballot title and summary satisfy §101.161(1) clarity requirements	Sponsor: Title/summary fairly and clearly state chief purpose; fit word limits	No opposition submitted	Court: Title and summary comply; they fairly inform and are not affirmatively misleading
Whether the scrivener’s error (word placement/striking of “citizen”) invalidates the measure	Sponsor: Error is de minimis; intent is clear that citizenship requirement remains	No opposition submitted	Court: Error is de minimis; no reasonable probability of voter confusion; not grounds to invalidate

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (sets out deferential review and limits Court’s inquiry for initiatives)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2013) (single-subject purpose and prohibition on altering functions of branches)
Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1984) (test for component parts as aspects of a single dominant plan)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply, 177 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 2015) (invalidity requires proposal to be clearly and conclusively defective)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voting Restoration Amendment, 215 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 2017) (explains logical and natural oneness of purpose for amendments)
Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner, 253 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 2018) (ballot summary must not state a proposition as creating or establishing something it does not)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab., 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (accuracy of ballot summary statements may be dispositive)