253 So. 3d 507
Fla.2018Background
- The 2017–2018 Constitution Revision Commission submitted Revision 5 (Amendment 10) to the Secretary of State for the November 2018 ballot; the ballot title and 75‑word summary described multiple government‑structure changes including protections for five "constitutional officers" (sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, clerk of court).
- Amendment 10 would amend article VIII, §1(d) to prohibit county charters or special law from abolishing, transferring duties, changing term length, or changing selection from election for those officers; a schedule provision delayed effective dates for Miami‑Dade and Broward.
- Volusia and Broward Counties sued the Secretary of State seeking to invalidate the ballot title/summary as misleading for failing to state the amendment’s chief purpose; Miami‑Dade intervened and the cases were consolidated.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for appellees, validating the ballot language; the First DCA certified the issue as one of great public importance, and the Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the ballot title and summary fairly inform voters of the amendment’s chief purpose and whether they are misleading under §101.161(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary fails to state the amendment’s chief purpose (divesting county voters of charter control over local structure) | Plaintiffs: summary omits that Amendment 10 removes voters’ current constitutional right to decide local government structure | Defs: summary states the amendment’s concrete effects on charters and election of officers; the implied consequences need not be restated | Held: Summary sufficiently states chief purpose; implicit consequences need not be redundantly spelled out |
| Whether summary misleads by failing to state current law (that officers are typically elected) | Plaintiffs: omitting that elections already exist makes "ensures election" sound like a new right or an at‑risk right | Defs: language accurately describes effect—Amendment 10 would ensure elections by prohibiting charter/special‑law alternatives; it does not claim elections are newly created or endangered | Held: Not misleading; wording accurately conveys effect and does not suggest novelty or imminent loss |
| Whether the summary improperly bundles multiple subjects so voters are misled | Plaintiffs: bundling unrelated measures prevents adequate description and may bias voters | Defs: CRC proposals are not single‑subject bound; the provisions are related by theme (state/local government structure) and the summary is clear | Held: Bundling not defective here; summary is clear and within limits |
| Whether summary should disclose retroactivity (effect on existing charter provisions) | Volusia: summary fails to disclose whether amendment applies retroactively; Miami‑Dade: argues it is retroactive and summary should say so | Defs: retroactivity is a legal question to resolve post‑election | Held: Court declines to decide retroactivity in title‑validity review; retroactivity questions reserved for post‑election proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (constitutional‑amendment review de novo and ballot‑language standard)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (extreme care before removing a proposal from the ballot)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175 (statutory standard for title/summary; two‑part inquiry)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So. 2d 210 (discussion of chief‑purpose and misleading language principles)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d 1209 (retroactivity questions reserved for post‑election review)
- Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478 (example of post‑ratification retroactivity analysis)
- State v. Lavazolli, 434 So. 2d 321 (example of post‑ratification retroactivity analysis)