ADVISORY OPIN. TO ATTY. GEN. RE TAX EXEMP.
Decision Date | 15 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC04-947.,SC04-947. |
Citation | 880 So.2d 630 |
Parties | ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE FAIRNESS INITIATIVE REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
Senator John McKay, Chair, and Thomas R. Julin and Talbot D'Alemberte, Tallahassee, FL, for Floridians Against Inequities in Rates, Proponents.
Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Howard E. Adams, and Kimberly L. King of Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A.; and Victoria L. Weber, Dan R. Stengle, and David L. Powell of Hopping Green and Sams, P.A. on behalf Florida Association of Realtors, Inc.; Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Florida Institute of Accountants, Inc.; Florida Phosphate Council, Inc.; National Federation of Independent Businesses, Inc.; Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council, f/k/a Florida Manufacturing and Chemical Council, Inc.; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Inc.; Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.; Florida Cattlemen's Association, Inc.; and Sunshine State Milk Producers, Inc., for Opponents.
The Attorney General has requested this Court to review a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we hold the proposed amendment violates article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2003).1
Floridians Against Inequities in Rates ("FAIR"), a political committee registered pursuant to section 106.03, Florida Statutes (2003), has invoked the petition process of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, to propose a constitutional amendment through citizen initiative. The amendment would direct the Legislature to perform an open review of exemptions from and exclusions to the state's sales tax. The full text of the proposed amendment states:
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is "Fairness Initiative Requiring Legislative Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions and Exclusions Serve A Public Purpose." The summary for the proposed amendment states:
The Legislature shall periodically review sales tax exemptions or excluded services and transactions except: food; prescription drugs; health services; and residential rent, electricity, and heating fuel; and shall continue or create only exemptions or exclusions serving a defined public purpose. Each law shall contain the single subject of a single exemption or exclusion and be approved by three-fifths vote of each legislative house. Exemptions and exclusions not reenacted or adopted by the Legislature are eliminated.
The Florida Secretary of State submitted the amendment to the Florida Attorney General, pursuant to section 15.21, Florida Statutes (2003).
In accordance with the provisions of article IV, section 10, Florida Constitution, and section 16.061, Florida Statutes (2003), the Attorney General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to whether the text of the proposed amendment complies with article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and whether the proposed ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2003). FAIR has filed a brief in favor of the proposed amendment, and a number of interested parties have filed a joint brief opposing the placement of the amendment on the ballot.2
When the Court is mandated to render an advisory opinion concerning a proposed constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, the Court must limit its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2003). See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d 888, 890-91 (Fla.2000).
In addressing these two issues, our inquiry is governed by several general principles. First, we do not consider or address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment. See, e.g., Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d at 891. Second, "[t]he Court must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people." Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982). Specifically, where citizen initiatives are concerned, "[the] Court has no authority to inject itself in the process, unless the laws governing the process have been `clearly and conclusively' violated." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d 491, 498-99 (Fla.2002); see also Amendment to Bar Gov't From Treating From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d at 891 (). Hence, our review is narrow and limited to the two questions set out above.
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, sets forth the requirements for a proposed constitutional amendment arising via the citizen initiative process. This section contains the single-subject rule:
SECTION 3. Initiative.—The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.
Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). The single-subject requirement is a "rule of restraint" that was "placed in the constitution by the people to allow the citizens, by initiative petition, to propose and vote on singular changes in the functions of our governmental structure." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates' Campaigns, 693 So.2d 972, 975 (Fla.1997) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla.1984)). Specifically, the single-subject rule prevents an amendment from engaging in either of two practices: (a) logrolling, or (b) substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of state government.
The single-subject rule prevents logrolling, "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. Re ex rel. Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions. Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. Re ex rel. Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions
- In re Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. re Rights of Elec. Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice
- In re All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, & Cabinet.
- Dep't of State v. Hollander