315 So.3d 1176
Fla.2021Background:
- The Attorney General sought an advisory opinion on an initiative petition titled "Adult Use of Marijuana" (sponsored by Make It Legal Florida) to add Article X, §33 to the Florida Constitution allowing adults 21+ to possess, use, purchase, display, and transport up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and to permit Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to sell to adults under certain conditions.
- The proposed amendment text expressly states the activities would be free of "criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law." It also contains limits (no public use, labeling/childproof packaging, advertising restrictions) and delegates regulatory authority to the Department of Health.
- The ballot title: "Adult Use of Marijuana." The ballot summary began: "Permits adults 21 years or older to possess, use, purchase, display, and transport up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana..." and omitted any explicit qualification that the change applied only to Florida law.
- The Attorney General and several legislative and civic interested parties opposed the petition; the Sponsor alone supported it. Oral argument occurred and the Court reviewed whether the initiative satisfied single-subject and §101.161(1) (title/summary clarity) requirements.
- The Court concluded the ballot summary was "affirmatively misleading" because the unqualified word "Permits" suggested immunity from prosecution generally, while the amendment expressly limited immunity to "under Florida law" (leaving federal prohibition intact). The Court struck the proposed amendment for violating §101.161(1).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title/summary complies with §101.161(1) (clear, not misleading) | Sponsor: Summary accurately mirrors amendment; need not mention federal law; voters presumed to know limits of state power | AG/Opponents: Unqualified "Permits" affirmatively misleads by implying freedom from all legal consequences; omission of "under Florida law" is misleading | Court: Summary is affirmatively misleading; fails §101.161(1); amendment struck |
| Whether ballot summary must (or should) disclose that authorization is limited to Florida law / not immunizing federal violations | Sponsor: Not required; precedent does not demand explaining federal law; summary should focus on state-law change | Opponents: Prior ballot summaries expressly disclosed federal-law limitation; omission here increases risk of voter confusion about scope | Court: Omission of the limiting language rendered the summary misleading given federal prohibition; summary must not affirmatively mislead |
Key Cases Cited
- Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (discussed ballot-summary treatment of federal-law implications)
- Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2015) (approved ballot summary that expressly limited effect to Florida law and disclaimed federal immunity)
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot summaries must accurately represent the substance of the proposal)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (measure cannot be disguised by misleading summary)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative District Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2009) (standards for assessing ballot summary clarity)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (deferential review; voter responsibility to inform themselves)
- Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let’s Help Florida, 363 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1978) (initiative must be "clearly and conclusively" defective to be blocked)