Cnty. of Volusia v. Detzner
Decision Date | 07 September 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC18-1339,SC18-1339 |
Citation | 253 So.3d 507 |
Parties | COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Kenneth J. DETZNER, etc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, Oren Rosenthal, Michael B. Valdes, and Miguel A. Gonzalez, Assistant County Attorneys, Miami, Florida, for Appellant Miami-Dade County
Daniel D. Eckert, County Attorney, DeLand, Florida, for Appellants Volusia County, Philip T. Fleuchaus, and T. Wayne Bailey
Andrew J. Meyers, Broward County Attorney, Mark A. Journey, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Joseph K. Jarone, Scott Androne, and Claudia Capdesuner, Assistant County Attorneys, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Broward County
Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee Florida Association of Court Clerks, Inc.
Timothy R. Qualls and Kayla M. Scarpone of Young Qualls, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee Florida Tax Collectors Association
John A. Tucker of Foley & Lardner, Jacksonville, Florida; Christina M. Kennedy and Virginia R. Beeson, Foley & Lardner, Orlando, Florida; and Robert H. Hosay and James A. McKee of Foley & Lardner, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee Anne M. Gannon, Palm Beach Tax Collector
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Edward M. Wenger, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Jordan Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee Kenneth J. Detzner, Secretary of State
Laura Youmans, Legislative Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Association of Counties, Inc.
Thomas W. Poulton of DeBevoise & Poulton, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Sheriffs Association
Gigi Rollini and Glenn Burhans, Jr., of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Association for Constitutional Officers, Inc.
Volusia, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties seek review of a circuit court order validating the ballot title and summary of a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution ("Amendment 10"). The First District Court of Appeal certified the order as presenting a question of great public importance requiring this Court's immediate resolution. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
On May 9, 2018, the 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) submitted its proposed revisions and accompanying ballot summaries to the Secretary of State. Among them was Revision 5, retitled Amendment 10 for the November 2018 ballot. The ballot title and summary for Amendment 10 state:
At issue in this case is the portion of the summary stating that Amendment 10 requires the election of the five named officers ("constitutional officers") in all counties, and eliminates county charters' ability to abolish, transfer duties, or change the terms of those constitutional offices. The relevant portion of Amendment 10 would amend1 article VIII, section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution as follows:
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court; except, when provided by county charter or special law approved by vote of the electors of the county, any county officer may be chosen in another manner therein specified, or any county office may be abolished when all the duties of the office prescribed by general law are transferred to another office. UnlessWhen nototherwise provided bycounty charter orspecial law approved by vote of the electors or pursuant to Article V, section 16, the clerk of the circuit court shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds. Notwithstanding subsection 6(e) of this article, a county charter may not abolish the office of a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, or a clerk of the circuit court; transfer the duties of those officers to another officer or office; change the length of the four-year term of office; or establish any manner of selection other than by election by the electors of the county.
Amendment 10 would also add the following section to article VIII of the Florida Constitution:
In June 2018, Volusia County (along with Philip T. Fleuchaus and T. Wayne Bailey, Volusia County voters) and Broward County independently sued the Florida Department of State and Secretary of State Kenneth Detzner, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Both argued that the ballot title and summary of Amendment 10 mislead voters by failing to sufficiently describe Amendment 10's chief purpose. The circuit court consolidated the lawsuits and permitted Miami-Dade County to intervene as a plaintiff. The court further granted leave for the Florida Association of Court Clerks, Florida Tax Collectors Association, and Anne M. Gannon in her capacity as Palm Beach County Tax Collector to intervene as defendants.
All parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted final summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that the ballot language would enable the average voter to understand the primary effect of Amendment 10. Therefore, the court held, Amendment 10 should be included on the November 2018 ballot.
We review the validity of a proposed constitutional amendment de novo. Armstrong v. Harris , 773 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla. 2000). In conducting this review, our sole task is to determine whether the ballot language sets forth the substance of the amendment in a manner consistent with section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2018).
Section 101.161(1) requires that a constitutional amendment "submitted to the vote of the people" include a title "not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to," and a ballot summary that explains "the chief purpose of the measure" in no more than seventy-five words. In assessing conformity with these requirements, we consider two questions: "(1) whether the ballot title and summary, in clear and unambiguous language, fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2) whether the language of the title and summary, as written, misleads the public." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries , 2 So.3d 175, 184 (Fla. 2009) ( ). We exercise "extreme care, caution, and restraint" before striking a proposed amendment from the ballot, holding a proposal invalid only if the record proves the amendment to be "clearly and conclusively defective." Askew v. Firestone , 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla. 1982) ; Armstrong , 773 So.2d at 11.
Appellants first argue that the ballot title and summary are defective for failing to inform voters of what the Appellants assert is Amendment 10's true chief purpose: to divest county voters of their current constitutional right to decide the structure of their local governments. Since the summary makes no mention of this loss of rights, Appellants argue, the ballot language is misleading.
We disagree. The summary accurately states the effect that Amendment 10's passage would have on county charters and special laws; there is no need to explain ramifications that are implicit in those statements. The summary tells voters that the amendment would "ensure" election of constitutional officers in all counties, and provides that county charters may not allow for their selection by an alternative method. It is therefore unnecessary to explain the obvious result—that voters would not be able to eliminate election of the officers by charter or special law. Similarly, because the summary makes clear that the existence of the constitutional offices, along with their duties and terms, would no longer be subject to change by charter, it would be redundant to state that county electors could not amend their charter to make the prohibited changes.
Appellants next argue that the ballot language fails to describe "the current state of the law," rendering it misleading in two ways. First, Appellants claim that the ballot language is deficient because it does not inform voters that constitutional officers are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Detzner v. League of Women Voters of Fla.
...bundling of multiple issues within one amendment results in a misleading ballot summary and title. Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner , 253 So.3d 507, 512, 2018 WL 4272435 (Fla. Sept. 7, 2018) ("It follows that the bundling of measures creates a defect only if the measures are presented on the ball......
-
In re Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Fla. Elections
...ballot title and summary do not affirmatively state that the proposed amendment " ‘creates’ or ‘establishes,’ " Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner , 253 So. 3d 507, 511 (Fla. 2018), a citizenship requirement—or any other requirement—for voting. Instead, the ballot summary "accurately describes," id......
-
Cnty. of Volusia v. Desantis
...county charters’ ability to abolish, change term, transfer duties, or eliminate election of these offices." See Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner , 253 So. 3d 507, 509 (Fla. 2018). The schedule for the amendment provided that it "shall take effect January 5, 2021, but shall govern with respect to ......
-
Dinerstein v. Bucher
...to,’ and a ballot summary that explains ‘the chief purpose of the measure’ in no more than seventy-five words." Cty. of Volusia v. Detzner , 253 So. 3d 507, 510 (Fla. 2018)."In assessing conformity with these requirements, we consider two questions: ‘(1) whether the ballot title and summary......