320 So.3d 657
Fla.2021Background
- The Florida Attorney General requested an advisory opinion on a citizen-initiative titled “Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol to Establish Age, Licensing, and Other Restrictions” (sponsored by Sensible Florida). The Court has jurisdiction under Art. IV §10 and Art. V §3(b)(10).
- The proposed constitutional amendment would legalize cannabis for persons 21+, create licensing categories (cultivation, manufacturing, testing, retail), authorize state and local regulation, and make certain personal possession/use acts noncriminal within defined minimum quantities.
- Section (c) (Personal use) makes certain possession/use noncriminal and establishes minimum quantities “subject to increase by state, county, or municipal legislation, but not subject to decrease.” Thus the amendment creates a floor for personal possession but permits increases (including potentially unlimited amounts) by statute or local law.
- The ballot title: “Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol to Establish Age, Licensing, and Other Restrictions.” The 75‑word ballot summary began: “Regulates marijuana (hereinafter ‘cannabis’) for limited use and growing by persons twenty-one years of age or older…”
- Opponents argued the summary is affirmatively misleading because the text does not actually limit personal consumption/‘use’; Sponsor argued “limited” simply means “not unlimited” and pointed to other regulatory/possession limits in the measure.
- The Court (per curiam majority) concluded the ballot summary is affirmatively misleading regarding “limited use” and therefore the proposed amendment must be excluded from the ballot; Justice Lawson (with Justice Labarga) dissented, arguing the title and summary read together are not misleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot summary is affirmatively misleading by stating the amendment “regulates marijuana for limited use” | AG/opponents: summary falsely implies the amendment limits personal consumption; the text creates minimum protected quantities but allows increases (potentially unlimited) by statute/local law | Sponsor: “limited” means “not unlimited”; amendment contains age, possession, growing, gifting and time/place/manner limits; title+summary read together inform voters | Court: Held summary is affirmatively misleading; summary inaccurately states the amendment limits personal use; proposal excluded from ballot |
| Whether the initiative violates the single-subject requirement or other statutory requirements beyond summary clarity | Opponents raised single‑subject and other challenges | Sponsor defended single subject and clarity; urged reading title+summary together | Court: Did not decide single-subject issue as summary defect was dispositive; single-subject not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Indep. Nonpartisan Comm'n to Apportion Legis. & Cong. Dists. Which Replaces Apportionment by Legislature, 926 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2006) (scope of Court's review of initiative validity)
- Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (deferential standard; ballot summary must fairly inform voters)
- Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2015) (purpose of title/summary is fair notice to voters)
- Detzner v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 256 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2018) (summary must accurately describe the scope of the amendment)
- Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right to Competitive Energy Mkt. for Customers of Inv'r‑Owned Utils., 287 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2020) (example of summary being affirmatively misleading)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (title/summary may not disguise the measure's true effect)
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (invalidating measures that "hide the ball")
- Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non‑Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (Court will not place an amendment on the ballot when laws governing the process are clearly and conclusively violated)