296 So.3d 376
Fla.2020Background
- Sponsor (Ban Assault Weapons NOW) proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit possession of defined "assault weapons" (semiautomatic rifles/shotguns capable of holding >10 rounds), exempting handguns and law enforcement and allowing registries for pre-existing possession.
- The amendment would add subsection (e) to Fla. Const. art. I, § 8, criminalizing possession (third-degree felony) and providing a one-year registration/grace period for persons who lawfully possessed such weapons before the effective date.
- The ballot title: "Prohibits possession of defined assault weapons." The 75‑word ballot summary stated the Initiative "Exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date."
- The Attorney General sought this Court’s advisory opinion under article IV, § 10 and art. V, § 3(b)(10); proponents and multiple parties filed briefs for and against validity.
- The Court’s review in initiative advisory opinions is confined to (1) single‑subject compliance and (2) whether the ballot title and summary comply with § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.; the Court applies a deferential standard but will invalidate clearly and conclusively defective measures.
- The Court found the ballot summary affirmatively misleading because it conveys that the weapon itself is exempt once registered, whereas the text exempts only the current owner’s possession; transfers after registration would be unlawful. The Initiative was precluded from the ballot. Justice Labarga dissented, arguing the summary satisfied § 101.161(1) given the 75‑word limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot summary misleadingly states that assault weapons "are exempt" if lawfully possessed and registered before the effective date | Proponents: summary fairly states chief purpose; voters will understand owner‑based scope; 75‑word limit permits omission of fine detail | AG/Opponents: summary affirmatively misleads by implying the weapon (not just the current owner’s possession) remains exempt; post‑registration transfers would become felonies | Court: Ballot summary is affirmatively misleading and violates §101.161(1); Initiative cannot appear on the ballot |
| Whether the summary’s brevity (75‑word limit) excuses lack of detail about exemption/transfer effects | Proponents (dissent): voters must educate themselves; summary needn't include all details; language is accurate and sufficiently narrow | Majority: statutory duty to avoid affirmatively misleading language outweighs summary brevity in this instance | Court: Majority rejects brevity defense; dissent would have placed the measure on the ballot |
Key Cases Cited
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of Gambling in Fla., 215 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2017) (framework for initiative review)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (deferential review and limits on Court’s role)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non‑Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (respect for citizen‑initiated constitutional change)
- Dep’t of State v. Fla. Greyhound Ass’n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2018) (ballot language can be affirmatively or negatively defective)
- Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2008) (two‑question test: fair notice and misleading language)
- Smith v. Am. Airlines, 606 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1992) (recognition that 75‑word limit prevents inclusion of all proposal details)