Armstrong v. Harris
| Decision Date | 07 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. SC95223.,SC95223. |
| Citation | 773 So.2d 7 |
| Parties | Rev. Dr. James ARMSTRONG, et al., Appellants, v. Katherine HARRIS, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Randall C. Berg, Jr., Peter M. Siegel, and JoNel Newman of the Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Miami, Florida, for Appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Louis F. Hubener, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Peters, Special Counsel, and Richard B. Martell, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellees.
Tom Warner, Solicitor General of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and the State of Florida, and on behalf of Appellees Katherine Harris, et al.
We have on appeal a judgment certified by the district court to be of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const.
The Florida Legislature filed with the Florida Secretary of State ("Secretary") a joint resolution (No. 3505) of the House of Representatives of the Florida Legislature proposing an amendment to article I, section 17, Florida Constitution, relating to excessive punishments (May 5, 1998). The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 2. Dr. Armstrong and other citizens filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court challenging the validity of the proposed amendment (October 9), but the Court by a four-to-three vote declined to exercise jurisdiction "without prejudice to Armstrong to file an appropriate action in circuit court" (October 19).1 Armstrong then filed a complaint in circuit court seeking mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief (October 20), and the court ruled thusly: It dismissed the claim for mandamus relief, denied injunctive relief, and withheld ruling on the claim for declaratory relief (October 26). Armstrong sought certiorari review in the district court (October 26); that court certified the issue to this Court (October 28). On the day preceding the general election, this Court unanimously dismissed the appeal for technical reasons, without prejudice (November 2).2 Voters at the general election approved the amendment (November 3).
Armstrong filed a motion in this Court asking the Court to remand the case to the district court (November 11). He then filed in circuit court the present amended petition claiming that the ballot title and summary are inaccurate and again seeking mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief (December 3). The Secretary filed an answer in circuit court conceding that this claim is justiciable in an action for injunctive or declaratory relief3 but asserting that the ballot title and summary are accurate (December 28). Armstrong sought summary judgment, contending that the ballot title and summary are misleading as a matter of law (January 4, 1999). The Secretary filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the ballot title and summary are adequate (January 27). The circuit court's authority to decide the matter was not challenged or raised as an issue. This Court then issued an order formally remanding the case to the circuit court, without prejudice, to resolve the pending issues (February 2, 1999).4 The circuit court reviewed the respective arguments in the summary judgment motions and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, concluding that the Secretary's legal argument was more persuasive (February 25).5 Armstrong appealed (March 15). The district court certified the case to this Court via "pass through" jurisdiction (March 31).6
Armstrong contends that both the ballot title and summary to Amendment No. 2 are defective for several reasons: They fail to disclose that the current prohibition against "cruel or unusual punishment" would be changed to "cruel and unusual punishment"; they give the false impression that the death penalty is in danger of being abolished and needs to be "preserved"; and they fail to give notice that the amendment would alter the separation of powers between the branches of government by giving the Legislature unfettered discretion to establish both the method of execution and the crimes susceptible to the death penalty.
In her answer brief before this Court, the Secretary argued—as she did below—that the ballot title and summary are accurate. She never argued or suggested that Armstrong lacks standing to pursue this action. Following oral argument before this Court, the Secretary submitted a supplemental brief7 in which she now contends that Armstrong cannot pursue this appeal because the general election already has taken place, the voters have approved the amendment, and Armstrong's action was dilatory. We disagree.
Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, contains a pre-election notice requirement which provides that a proposed constitutional amendment must be published in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state at both ten and six weeks prior to the election.8 The purpose of this requirement is to avoid a "November surprise" in which voters are taken unawares in the voting booth by a proposed amendment. If citizens are given adequate pre-election notice, those who object to the substance of an amendment can voice their views in the public forum, and those who object to the regularity of the ballot title and summary can challenge the amendment in court.
Assuming that Armstrong received constructive notice of the present amendment in conformity with article XI, section 5, his failure to file the initial petition until several weeks later (i.e., three and a half weeks before the election) does not appear dilatory. Nothing in the record reveals that, prior to obtaining constructive notice, Armstrong, et al., constituted a formal political apparatus or an established special interest group with clear pre-publication knowledge of the amendment. Rather, appellants appear to be an ad hoc group of concerned citizens who, upon receiving notice, required a reasonable period of time in which to exercise their electoral prerogative-i.e., to meet and discuss the matter; to organize; to chart a course of action; to fund their organization, if necessary; to employ counsel; to research the issues, and to file suit. Given the pre-election publication schedule set forth in article XI, section 5, appellants filed their petition within a reasonable time after receiving constructive notice of the proposed amendment.
A court may declare a proposed constitutional amendment invalid only if the record shows that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective;9 the standard of review for a pure question of law is de novo.10 Proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution may originate in any of several sources, including the Legislature,11 revision commission,12 citizen initiative,13 or constitutional convention.14 Regardless of source, a proposed amendment ultimately must be submitted to the electors for approval at the next general election. Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, states:
Art. XI, § 5, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). Implicit in this provision is the requirement that the proposed amendment be accurately represented on the ballot; otherwise, voter approval would be a nullity.15
This accuracy requirement, which applies to all proposed constitutional amendments, has been codified by the Legislature in chapter 101, Florida Statutes (1997). Because the text of a proposed amendment oftentimes is detailed and lengthy, section 101.161 provides that only a title and brief summary of the amendment's "chief purpose" may be listed on the ballot. The actual text of the amendment does not appear:
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). Significantly, both the ballot title and summary are prepared by the amendment's sponsor.16
Because voters will not have the actual text of the amendment before them in the voting booth when they enter their votes, the accuracy requirement is of paramount importance for the ballot title and summary:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie
...is simple: It applies across-the-board to all constitutional amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature.Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 16 (Fla.2000). Similarly, in Armstrong the Florida court found unconstitutionally misleading a ballot summary concerning a constitutional am......
-
State v. Addison
... ... See People v. Carmony, 127 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1085, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 (Ct.App.2005) ; Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 17 (Fla.2000) ; State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 488, 490 (Minn.1998) ; People v. Bullock, 440 Mich. 15, 485 N.W.2d ... ...
-
State v. Addison
... ... See People v. Carmony , 127 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1085 (Ct. App. 2005); Armstrong v. Harris , 773 So. 2d 7, 17 (Fla. 2000); State v. Mitchell , 577 N.W.2d 481, 488, 490 (Minn. 1998); People v. Bullock , 485 N.W.2d 866, 872 n.11 ... ...
-
RJL v. State
... ... See Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000) ... In Randall, the First District held that the retention of a criminal history record does not constitute ... ...
-
Chapter 19-6 Standards of Review
...between the findings of fact and the conclusions of law is what makes the standard of review "mixed." [78] Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla. 2000).[79] Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).[80] Pennymac Loan Services LLC v. Ustarez, 303 So. 3......
-
Chapter 18-6 Standards of Review
...the trial court has no greater insight than the appellate court. Finally, the appellate court reviews the trial [62] Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla. 2000).[63] Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).[64] Belcher Center, LLC v. Belcher Center,......
-
State constitutional amendments and individual rights in the twenty-first century.
...invalidation was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court on the grounds that the ballot language was misleading. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 10, 22 (Fla. (117) FLA. CONST. art. I, [section] 17 (amended 2002). (118) Dinah, Foreword, supra note 59, at 1017-19; Lawrence Friedman, The O......