Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. English--The Official Language of Florida, In re, ENGLISH--THE
| Decision Date | 04 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71431,ENGLISH--THE,71431 |
| Citation | 520 So.2d 11,13 Fla. L. Weekly 67 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 67 In re ADVISORY OPINION TO the ATTORNEY GENERALOFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF FLORIDA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
W. Dexter Douglass of Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell, Tallahassee, for Florida English Campaign and U.S. English Legislative Task Force, Inc., Proponents of the Initiative Measure.
Barnaby W. Zall, U.S. English, Washington, D.C. and Bruce Fein, Great Falls, Va., for U.S. English in support of Florida English Campaign and U.S. English Legislative Task Force, Inc., Proponents of the Initiative Measure.
Lawrence D. Pratt, President, Springfield, Va., for English First, In Support Of The Florida Initiative Petition For An English Language Amendment To The Florida Constitution.
Paul Siegel, Miami, for Committee for Constitutional Honesty, In Opposition To Placing the "English-Official Language" Proposition On The Ballot.
Edna E. Canino, Miami, for League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, and Calixto Anaya, Florida State Director In Opposition in the matter of the "English Only Constitutional Amendment."
Roger L. Rice and Camilo Perez-Bustillo, Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy, Inc., Somerville, Md., amicus curiae for Aspira of Florida (Miami), Bilingual Association of Florida, Coalition of Hispanic American Women, Cuban American Democratic Association of Florida, Greater Miami United, Haitian American Community Association of Dade (HACAD), and National Conference of Puerto Rican Women--Miami Chapter.
Charlene Miller Carres, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida; Martha Jimenez, G. Mario Moreno, Antonia Hernandez and E. Richard Larson, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Washington, D.C.; and Linda Flores and Juan Cartagena, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York, New York, amici curiae.
In order to provide for early resolution of the validity of initiative petitions, the voters of Florida adopted the following amendment to our constitution in 1986:
The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously.
Thereafter, the legislature directed the attorney general, upon the receipt of a proposed revision or amendment by initiative petition, to petition this Court for an advisory opinion regarding the compliance of the text thereof with article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution and compliance of the proposed ballot title and substance with section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1987). § 16.061, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the attorney general has now written a letter to this Court requesting our opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition which has been circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. In response, this Court entered an order permitting briefs to be filed by interested parties and heard oral arguments on the subject.
The petition seeks to add a new section to article II of our constitution which would provide:
Section 9. English is the Official Language of Florida
(a) English is the official language of the state of Florida.
(b) The Legislature shall have the power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation.
The ballot title and summary for the proposed amendment provides:
English is the Official Language of Florida
Establishes English as the official language of the State of Florida: Enables the legislature to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
In his letter the attorney general raises the question of whether the proposed amendment may be so broad as to violate the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution which provides in pertinent part:
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 shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.
In Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla.1984), this Court stated:
The purpose of the single-subject requirement is to allow the citizens to vote on singular changes in our government that are identified in the proposal and to avoid voters having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change which they support.
Id. at 993. To comply with the one subject limitation, the proposed amendment must have a "logical and natural oneness of purpose." Id. at 990.
The opponents of the proposed amendment argue that it is so broad that it may impact on other portions of the Florida Constitution. They suggest the possibility that legislation might be passed to implement the amendment which could, for example, abridge the freedom of speech or the press, violate due process or invade the right of privacy. The difficulty with these arguments is that there has been no such legislation, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n
...So.2d at 1354, 457 So.2d at 1357, 457 So.2d at 1360. See also Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204 (Fla.1986); In re: Advisory Opin. to Atty. Gen. English, 520 So.2d 11 (Fla.1988). In summary, the 1885 Florida Constitution had a requirement that if more than one proposed amendment was being......
-
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
...” Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So.3d at 185 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re English–The Official Language of Fla., 520 So.2d 11, 13 (Fla.1988)). We conclude that the use of “diseases” instead of “conditions” in the ballot summary will not reasonably mislead the voters. A “disease”......
-
In re Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. re Rights of Elec. Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice
...amendment could have broad ramifications. See, e.g., Leg. Dist. Boundaries, 2 So.3d at 181 ; Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. English—the Official Language of Florida, 520 So.2d 11, 12–13 (Fla.1988).For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the proposed citizen initiative amendment does not v......
-
Advisory Opinion re Legislative Boundaries
...whether a proposed amendment, on its face, meets the single-subject requirement. See In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re English—The Official Language of Fla., 520 So.2d 11, 13 (Fla.1988) (approving placement of proposed amendment on the ballot even where "the amendment could have broad ram......
-
The right to choose your health care provider; a constitutional necessity.
...1995). (7) FLA. CONST. art. I, [sections] 10. (8) Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General, English--The Official Language of Florida, 520 So. 2d 11 (Fla. Glen D. Wieland is a partner is the law firm of Kelaher, Wieland & Hilado, P.A. in Orlando. He graduated from Presbyterian College a......