177 So. 3d 235
Fla.2015Background
- Florida Supreme Court considered an advisory petition from the Attorney General on a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment titled “Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Electricity Supply” proposed by Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc.
- The amendment would add Article X, §29 to the Florida Constitution to (a) declare state policy favoring local small-scale solar, (b) exempt "local solar electricity suppliers" (≤2 MW) from state/local regulation of rates, service, or territory, and (c) prohibit utilities from imposing special rates/charges on customers who purchase such local solar power.
- The ballot title and 75-word summary were submitted; the Financial Impact Estimating Conference produced a separate <=75-word Financial Impact Statement predicting overall decreased state and local revenues, with timing and magnitude indeterminate.
- Opponents (utilities, business groups, municipal associations, others) argued the amendment violated the single-subject rule and that the ballot summary was misleading; some supported the financial statement’s form.
- The Court’s review was limited to (1) whether the amendment complies with the single-subject requirement of Art. XI, §3 and (2) whether the ballot title/summary and Financial Impact Statement satisfy statutory clarity and content requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-subject (logrolling / unity of purpose) | Sponsor: All provisions serve one dominant plan — remove barriers to local solar supply; provisions are component parts of one scheme. | Opponents: Amendment bundles disparate subjects (economic barriers, govt. regulation, utility rules) to logroll support for unpopular items. | Court: Approves — provisions share a logical, natural oneness of purpose; not disparate or impermissibly logrolled. |
| Separation of powers / multiple branches | Opponents: Amendment substantially alters functions of multiple branches by limiting legislative and regulatory authority over utilities and local regulation. | Sponsor: Effects do not substantially alter or perform multiple branches’ functions; affecting several branches alone is insufficient. | Court: Approves — effects do not produce precipitous or cataclysmic alterations of multiple branches. |
| Ballot title & summary clarity | Opponents (Polston, J. in part): Summary is confusing/misleading — understates scope, fails to disclose removal of PSC jurisdiction and possible overriding of health/safety/local land-use rules; misleads about scale (2 MW). | Majority: Title/summary fairly inform voters of chief purpose and are not clearly and conclusively defective; phraseology reflects amendment text. | Court: Approves — title and summary are clear and not misleading; concurrence/dissent expresses concern. |
| Financial Impact Statement adequacy | Some opponents argued uncertainty renders it inadequate. | FIEC and some utilities: Statement meets statutory requirements despite indeterminacy. | Court: Approves — statement is <=75 words, limited to revenue/cost estimates, and is clear though necessarily indefinite. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So.3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (deferential standard for citizen initiatives; review limited to single-subject and ballot clarity)
- In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. — Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 1994) (single-subject protects against logrolling and precipitous constitutional change)
- Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1984) (unity of purpose test for single-subject)
- Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot. Amend., 926 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2006) (logical and natural oneness of purpose standard)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (ballot title and summary must stand on their own and not mislead voters)
- In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2007) (ballot and financial-statement clarity standards)