253 So. 3d 513
Fla.2018Background
- The 2017–18 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) submitted Amendment 13 to the Secretary of State to appear on the Nov. 2018 ballot; it would add provisions banning commercial dog (greyhound) racing and wagering in Florida after specified dates and state that humane treatment of animals is a "fundamental value."
- The CRC provided a ballot title and 75-word summary: "ENDS DOG RACING. - Phases out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020. Other gaming activities are not affected."
- Florida Greyhound Association and an individual plaintiff sued in Leon County circuit court asserting the ballot title/summary were "clearly and conclusively defective," claiming omissions and misleading language; the circuit court granted summary judgment and enjoined Amendment 13 from the ballot.
- The Department of State appealed; the First DCA certified the case as one of great public importance, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the ballot language fairly informs voters of the amendment's chief purpose and whether it misleads the public, applying precedents that require extreme caution before removing an amendment from the ballot.
- The Court reversed the circuit court: it held (1) the "fundamental value" clause is prefatory and need not appear in the summary; (2) Amendment 13 does not amend or repeal any constitutional provision (Article X, § 23 unaffected); and (3) the title/summary together reasonably inform voters that the amendment phases out commercial dog racing tied to wagering and does not bar out-of-state wagering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of the "humane treatment is a fundamental value" language makes the ballot summary defective | The ballot fails to disclose a chief purpose recognizing a new constitutional "fundamental value," misleading voters | The provision is prefatory (no legal effect) and need not be disclosed in the 75-word summary | Held: Provision is prefatory; omission does not render summary defective |
| Whether the summary misstates effect on other gaming (esp. Article X, § 23/free‑standing casinos) | Amendment 13 decouples pari‑mutuel race requirements from cardroom/slot licenses, materially affecting other gaming; summary falsely says other gaming not affected | Amendment 13 affects only future in‑state dog racing/wagering and removes statutory, not constitutional, licensing conditions; it does not alter any constitutional provision authorizing casinos/slots | Held: Summary accurately states other gaming activities are not affected; no conflict with Article X, § 23 |
| Whether the title "ENDS DOG RACING" and summary mislead voters about scope (e.g., banning all dog races or out‑of‑state wagering) | Voters will reasonably believe all dog racing and all wagering on dog races (including out‑of‑state) will be prohibited | Read together, title and summary limit the change to commercial dog racing in connection with wagering in Florida; voters won't reasonably infer broader scope | Held: Title and summary read together fairly inform voters; they do not mislead about scope |
| Whether courts may rely on CRC members' subjective debate to identify amendment's chief purpose | CRC floor statements show intent to change licensing structure and therefore omissions are material | Determination must be based on objective legal effect of the amendment's text, not sponsors' subjective statements | Held: Court must use objective criteria (the amendment's main effect); subjective debate not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot language review focuses on amendment's main effect and objective criteria)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (court may remove an amendment from the ballot only if clearly and conclusively defective)
- Smith v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 606 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1992) (ballot summary must describe the actual change; courts cannot rewrite defective summaries)
- Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2008) (extreme caution required before removing amendment; summaries need not state every constitutional interaction but must not conceal conflicts)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla.’s Amend. to Reduce Class Size, 816 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2002) (title and summary read together; summaries need not include every detail or exception)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1998) (summary cannot disguise the amendment’s true effect and must accurately describe scope)