Lead Opinion
The Attorney General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to the validity of a proposed citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution, submitted by an organization called Floridians for 21st Century Travel Connections & Choices (proponents). We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is “Florida Transportation Initiative for statewide high speed monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system.” The summary for the proposed amendment provides:
To reduce traffic and increase travel alternatives, this amendment provides for development of a high speed monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system linking Florida’s five largest urban areas and providing for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services by directing the state and/or state authorized private entity to implement the financing, acquisition of right-of-way, design, construction and operation of the system, with construction beginning by November 1, 2003.
The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
Article X, Section 19, Florida Constitution, is hereby created to read as follows:
High Speed Ground Transportation System.
To reduce traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that a high speed ground transportation system consisting of a monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system, capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour, be developed and operated in the State of Florida to provide high speed ground transportation by innovative, efficient and effective technologies consisting of dedicated rails or guideways separated from motor vehicular traffic that will link the five largest urban areas of the State as determined by the Legislature and provide for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services. The Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor are hereby directed to proceed with the development of such a system by the State and/or by a private entity pursuant to state approval and authorization, including the acquisition of right-of-way, the financing of design and construction of the system, and the operation of the system, as provided by specific appropriation and by law, with construction to begin on or before November 1, 2003.
In determining the validity of initiative petitions, this Court’s inquiry is limited to two legal issues: whether the proposed amendment comports with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of Florida’s Constitution, and whether the ballot title and summary are clear and unambiguous pursuant to section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1999). See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers,
Although it is our responsibility under the Constitution to determine whether a citizens’ initiative complies with the single-subject restriction and contains a proper title and ballot summary, we note that no party has filed a pleading or brief in opposition to this citizens’ initiative as has been done for so many of the other citizens’ initiatives we have reviewed. Although the Attorney General raises a concern as to whether there might be a single-subject violation, the Attorney General takes no position on whether the interference is “substantial enough to invoke the proscriptions of Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution or whether the amendment only incidentally alters or performs the functions of the legislative or executive branches.” Letter from Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, to The Honorable Major Harding, Chief Justice, and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida (Mar. 14, 2000) (on file with Supreme Court of Florida).
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, requires that a constitutional amendment proposed by an initiative petition “embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.” To comply with the single-subject requirement, a proposed amendment must manifest a “logical and natural oneness of purpose.” Fine v. Firestone,
The second reason for the single-subject restriction is to prevent a single constitutional amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple aspects of government. See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Save Our Everglades,
As the proponents of the amendment point out, the fact that an amendment affects multiple functions of government does not automatically invalidate a citizens’ initiative. See id. As we explained in detail in Limited Casinos:
We recognize that the petition, if passed, could affect multiple areas of government. In fact, we find it difficult to conceive of a constitutional amendment that would not affect other aspects of government to some extent. Howev*370 er, this Court has held that a proposed amendment can meet the single-subject requirement even though it affects multiple branches of government. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices,592 So.2d 225 , 227 (Fla.1991). Further, this Court has held that the possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment. English—The Official Language of Florida,520 So.2d at 12, 13 . All of the scenarios raised by the opponents relating to possible impacts on other branches of government or on the constitution are premature speculation. In English — The Official Language of Florida we stated “[i]t may be that, if passed, the amendment could have broad ramifications. Yet, on its face it deals with only one subject.” Id. at 13. Likewise, we find that the Limited Casinos amendment meets the single-subject requirement.
Limited Casinos,
Like the Limited Casinos amendment, this proposed amendment concerning a high-speed transportation system may have broad ramifications for this State, but it only deals with one subject and it does not substantially alter or perform multiple functions of government. Our opinion in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Requirement for Adequate Public Education Funding,
The opponents argue that the proposed amendment runs afoul of this rule because setting a minimum percentage of forty percent of appropriations for education arbitrarily relegates the percentage of appropriations for all other functions of government to the remaining sixty percent of appropriations and thereby substantially affects all of those other functions. We agree.
[[Image here]]
... Under this proposed amendment, this function of the Governor would be limited because the Governor would be unable to veto any specific appropriation within the forty-percent educational appropriation if the veto would reduce the education appropriation to less than the required forty percent. The proposed amendment also would affect the function of the Governor and Cabinet pursuant to article IV, section 13 of the Florida Constitution, as to reducing the State budget in compliance with the provisions of article VII, section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution, in the event of a revenue shortfall.
We distinguish Funding for Criminal Justice on the basis that the amendment it addressed contained a specific tax designed to produce revenue for which the amendment would allocate uses. Likewise, Everglades Sugar Production contained a specific fee, the use of which the amendment would restrict. These directed allocations of specific taxes and fees differ significantly from the setting of a percentage of all State appropriations for a particular use.
Id. at 449-50 (footnotes omitted).
The proposed constitutional amendment now before us does not suffer from the same fatal flaws as did the educational funding amendment. Although the proposed amendment does not point to a specific tax or fee from which the revenues for the project would come, it also does not require the Legislature to spend a specific
We further find that the language of the title and ballot summary of the proposed amendment comports with section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1999). On this issue, the Attorney General questions only whether the term “statewide” as used in the petition may be misleading. As the proponents of this initiative point out, however, this term is not confusing because the essence of the proposed amendment is to require a ground transportation system that will link the five largest urban areas. These areas would encompass a major portion of the State, and thus are “statewide.” Therefore, the ballot title and summary provide an accurate description of the amendment.
Accordingly, there is no bar to placing the proposed amendment on the ballot.
It is so ordered.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution requires that a constitutional amendment proposed by an initiative petition “embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.” I believe that the proposed citizen initiative amendment in the present case violates the ■ single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3.
As the majority points out, there are two reasons for the single-subject requirement. See majority op. at 369-370. First, the requirement is intended to prevent “logrolling.” See Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Limited Marine Net Fishing,
This Court has held in the past that “a proposed amendment can meet the single-subject requirement even though it affects multiple branches of government.” Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Limited Casinos,
The proponents of the proposed citizen initiative amendment state that the amendment will substantially alter or perform the functions of the legislative branch by removing any discretion the Legislature had to proceed with the development of a high speed ground transportation system. However, the proponents argue that the amendment will not substantially alter or perform the functions of either of the
The instant proposed amendment goes far beyond any of the amendments we have approved in the past. By requiring the Governor to “proceed” with the proposed amendment in the present case, the amendment would, in effect, strip the Governor of the constitutional authority to veto legislation relating to the amendment. See art. Ill, § 8, Fla. Const. (“Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor for approval and shall become a law if the governor approves and signs it, or fails to veto it within seven consecutive days after presentation.”). By negating the Governor’s right to veto legislation, it follows that the proposed amendment does not simply affect the executive branch; rather, the proposed amendment substantially alters or performs the constitutional functions of the executive- branch. The majority recognizes that a similar effect on both the Legislature’s appropriation function and the Governor’s veto power was the fatal flaw that required us to strike down the proposed amendment in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Requirement for Adequate Public Education Funding,
Accordingly, because the proposed amendment will substantially alter or perform the functions of both the legislative branch and the executive branch, I find that the amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, and should be stricken from the ballot.