256 So. 3d 1300
Fla.2018Background
- The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) placed Revision 1 (Amendment 6) on the November 2018 ballot; it would (1) expand and specify victims’ rights in Article I, §16, (2) raise judicial mandatory retirement from 70 to 75 in Article V, §8, (3) require de novo judicial review of agency interpretations in a new Article V, §21, and (4) add a transitional provision in Article XII.
- The CRC provided a 15-word title (“RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES”) and a 75-word summary describing the amendment’s chief purposes (victims’ rights, enforcement, de novo review, and retirement age change).
- Plaintiffs (Hollander, League of Women Voters, Brigham; Knowles separately) challenged the ballot title and summary as misleading; Knowles also alleged the amendment violated a single-subject/anti-bundling principle.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and enjoined placement of Amendment 6 on the ballot; the First DCA certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance.
- The Florida Supreme Court reversed: it held the title and summary satisfied statutory clarity requirements and were not materially misleading, and it rejected the single-subject challenge because CRC proposals are not subject to that requirement. The injunction was vacated and Amendment 6 ordered on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title/summary fairly inform voters of the amendment’s chief purpose | Title/summary omit material facts: (a) they fail to disclose that victims’ rights already exist and are being expanded/defined, (b) they hide that victims’ rights will be given parity with defendants’ rights, and (c) they omit that retirement-age change is only prospective | Title/summary, read together, state the chief purposes (creates victims’ rights, allows enforcement, requires de novo review, raises retirement age) and need not explain every detail or ramification | Court: Title and summary reasonably inform voters of the chief purpose and are not materially misleading; approval reversed circuit court and vacated injunction |
| Whether the summary misleads about application to juvenile/delinquency proceedings | Plaintiffs: summary does not make clear expansion to juvenile system | Defendants: summary explicitly states rights apply “throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes” | Court: Summary does state juvenile application; no material omission |
| Whether the amendment’s victims’ rights conflict with or subordinate defendants’ constitutional rights | Plaintiffs: amendment removes limiting phrase that rights exist only "to the extent" they don't interfere with accused rights, thereby elevating victims’ rights to parity and risking conflict with defendants’ rights | Defendants: text does not eliminate defendants’ rights; timing and remedial provisions preserve defendants’ protections; resolution of legal effect is for later adjudication, not ballot-review stage | Court: Ballot summary need not resolve legal effects; petitioner failed to show title/summary were misleading about this issue |
| Whether CRC proposals must satisfy single-subject/anti-bundling requirement | Plaintiffs/Knowles: Amendment 6 bundles unrelated changes (victims’ rights, judicial retirement, de novo review) forcing an up-or-down vote | Defendants: CRC proposals are not subject to single-subject rule; CRC process provides safeguards | Court: Single-subject requirement does not apply to CRC proposals; bundling is not a basis to strike the amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (courts must exercise restraint before removing a proposed amendment from the ballot)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1998) (ballot summary must give voter fair notice of a proposal’s content)
- Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (ballot title/summary must fairly inform voter of chief purpose)
- Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2008) (ballot language may not ‘hide the ball’ regarding an amendment’s true effect)
- Smith v. Coalition to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2002) (initiative sponsor’s right to place initiative on ballot if constitutional requirements met)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1997) (title/summary need not explain every detail)
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot must give voter fair notice; misleading summaries can nullify voter approval)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2017) (court will not strike a proposal based on ambiguous legal effects of amendment text rather than ballot clarity)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative Requiring Leg. Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions & Exclusions Serve a Public Purpose, 880 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2004) (two-step inquiry for ballot language review: chief purpose and whether language misleads)