Graham v. Haridopolos, 108 So. 3d 597

Florida Constitution Article IX, §7 created the Board of Governors with broad governance over the state university system, but its relation to funding control is unsettled.
2002 constitutional amendment did not expressly state transfer of tuition/fee setting or appropriations power to the Board; it granted management authority subject to legislative appropriation power.
Legislation in 2007 included statutes tying tuition/fee policies and appropriations to General Appropriations Act constraints and trust-fund controls.
First District held the amendment did not vest tuition/fee setting or funding control in the Board; the Board’s powers remain subject to legislative appropriation.
Petitioners argued the Board gained control over tuition/fees and that the challenged statutes were unconstitutional; the Legislature argued otherwise.
This Court reviews de novo constitutional questions but affords statutes a presumption of validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the 2002 amendment transfer tuition/fees control to the Board?	Graham argues transfer occurred, divesting Legislature.	State contends amendment did not transfer such power.	No transfer; Legislature retains control
Do the 2007 statutes facially unconstitutional under Article IX, §7(d)?	Graham claims statutes exceed Board authority.	Legislature asserts statutes are within its appropriations power.	Facially constitutional
What constitutional source governs the Legislature’s control over tuition/fees?	Graham relies on Article IX §7(d) transfer of power.	Legislature’s power to raise revenue and appropriate funds under Article VII controls.	Legislative revenue/appropriations power controls
Does the ballot language indicate a transfer of tuition/fees authority to the Board?	Ballot language implied broad Board control.	Ballot language did not indicate such transfer.	Ballot language does not indicate transfer

In re Advisory Op. to Atty. Gen. ex rel. Local Trs., 819 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2002) (ballot summary guides intent; two-tier governance recognized)
Graham v. Haridopolos, 75 So.3d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (First District held amendment did not transfer tuition/fees control)
Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1991) (legislative power to appropriate state funds resides in Legislature)
Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 838 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2003) (constitutional provisions read in pari materia; examine will of framers)
FACDL, 978 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2008) (constitutional provisions interpreted with plain language first)
State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2007) (ejusdem generis canon applied to interpret broad term following list)