256 So. 3d 803
Fla.2018Background
- The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) approved Revision 8 (a bundled measure combining three proposals) to amend Art. IX, §4(b), changing school boards’ duty to “operate, control, and supervise all free public schools” to only those “established by the district school board.”
- CRC prepared a 75‑word ballot summary stating the amendment would maintain school boards’ duties to schools they "establish," but "permit the state to operate, control, and supervise public schools not established by the school board."
- League of Women Voters (LWV) sued Secretary of State Kenneth Detzner seeking to enjoin placement of Revision 8 on the November 2018 ballot, arguing the title and summary failed to state the chief purpose and were misleading.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for LWV and enjoined placement; the First DCA certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the ballot summary failed to clearly state the chief purpose and misled or omitted material information about the amendment’s true effect (notably its impact on charter‑school authorization and which categories of public schools would be affected).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title/summary states the amendment's chief purpose | LWV: Summary fails to identify that the amendment would substantially curtail local school boards' authority to establish/authorize public schools (e.g., charter schools) | Detzner: Summary mirrors amendment text and shows contrast between schools "established by" boards and those not; it does not change the status quo | Held: The summary is defective — it does not clearly inform voters of the chief purpose and is therefore invalid |
| Whether the summary is misleading by omission or affirmative misstatement | LWV: Omits who would establish or supervise non‑board schools and which categories of public schools are implicated | Detzner: The summary correctly explains that the state, not school boards, may operate/control/supervise non‑board schools; implementation details properly left to Legislature | Held: The summary omits material ramifications and misleads voters; omission renders it uncured by the title/text |
| Whether proponents' divergent interpretations matter in assessing summary adequacy | LWV: Divergent public statements show ambiguity and demonstrate voters would not understand the amendment | Detzner: Courts should rely on objective text, not proponents' statements | Held: Proponents' differing explanations reinforced that the amendment and summary were not clear and unambiguous |
| Whether bundling multiple education measures rendered the ballot misleading | LWV: Bundling term limits, civic literacy, and the charter‑authorization change obscures chief purpose and encourages logrolling | Detzner: CRC process allows bundling; no single‑subject rule in Art. XI, §2, so bundling alone is insufficient | Held: Concurring opinion found bundling further confused voters; majority struck the measure on summary grounds (concurring justices emphasized bundling as an additional problem) |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot summary must accurately state chief purpose; cannot disguise amendment's true effect)
- Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982) (ballot must give voters fair notice; summary must not hide material effects)
- Duval Cty. Sch. Bd. v. State Bd. of Educ., 998 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (statute removing local boards' authority over charter schools conflicted with Art. IX, §4(b))
- Fla. Dep’t of State v. Fla. State Conference of NAACP Branches, 43 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 2010) (ballot language must not be misleading and must inform voters of essential effects)