Carroll v. Firestone
| Decision Date | 13 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | 69426,Nos. 69410,s. 69410 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 538,497 So.2d 1204 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 538, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 578 John F. CARROLL, et al., Petitioners, v. George FIRESTONE, etc., et al., Respondents. Thomas C. TODD, et al., Appellants, v. George FIRESTONE, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joseph W. Little, in pro. per., Gainesville, and Robert T. Mann, in pro. per., Gainesville, for John F. Carroll, Joseph W. Little, and Robert T. Mann, Taxpayers and Citizens of Florida.
Herbert R. Kraft, Tallahassee, for Thomas C. Todd and People Against Legalized Lotteries, Inc.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Mitchell D. Franks, Chief Trial Counsel, and Eric J. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for George Firestone.
W. Dexter Douglass and Michael F. Coppins of Douglass, Cooper & Coppins, Tallahassee, for Excellence Campaign: An Education Lottery, Inc. (E.X.C.E.L.)
Thomas W. Young III, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Florida Educ. Association/United AFT, AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.
Thomas W. Brooks of Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida Teaching Profession-National Educ. Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Appellants Todd and People Against Legalized Lotteries, Inc., seek review of a summary judgment that Proposition Five, a proposed initiative amendment to article X of the Florida Constitution, embraces only one subject and matter directly connected therewith and that the ballot summary accompanying the proposed amendment does not contravene section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1985). The First District Court of Appeal certified the judgment as being of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. Petitioners Carroll, Little and Mann seek a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Firestone, Secretary of the State of Florida, to remove the proposed amendment from the November 1986 ballot. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const.; Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla.1984).
The proposed amendment was initiated by appellee/respondent Excellence Campaign: An Education Lottery, Inc. (E.X.C.E.L.). There is no question but that the procedural requirements of Florida law were followed and that the requisite number of elector signatures were obtained pursuant to article XI, section 3. Thus, appellee/respondent Firestone is not the real party in interest. The issues raised are of substance for which E.X.C.E.L. is the real party in interest.
Appellants/petitioners urge four grounds in support of their position that the proposed amendment should be removed from the ballot: that it violates the single subject requirement of article XI, section 3; that the ballot summary violates the requirements of section 101.161 and case law; that there was fraud in inducing voters to sign the petition forms; and that the schedule clause of the purposed amendment violates article XI, section 1 of the Florida Constitution. We find no merit in any of these arguments, affirm the judgment below, and deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
The proposed amendment reads as follows:
(a) Lotteries may be operated by the State.
(b) If any subsections of the Amendment of the Florida Constitution are held unconstitutional for containing more than one subject, this Amendment shall be limited to subsection (a) above.
(c) This Amendment shall be implemented as follows:
(1) On the effective date of this Amendment, the lotteries shall be known as the Florida Education Lotteries. Net proceeds derived from the lotteries shall be deposited to a state trust fund, to be designated The State Education Lotteries Trust Fund, to be appropriated by the Legislature. The schedule may be amended by general law.
In pertinent part, article XI, section 3 reads:
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.
The relationship between the three subsections of the proposed amendment determines whether the amendment contains one subject and matter directly connected therewith. Subsection (b) is directly connected with subsections (a) and (c) in that it states, in effect, if subsection (c) is held to contain a different subject than subsection (a), that (c) will be stricken and (a) will stand alone. Petitioners Carroll, et al., suggest that subsection (b) impinges on this Court's constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and thus amends article V of the Constitution. We think not. Subsection (b) has no force unless we determine that subsections (a) and (c) contain more than one subject. Moreover, while we are charged with the ultimate responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, the intent of the drafters or adopters of a constitutional provision is a highly relevant factor. We see no constitutional infirmity, but much to commend, in a drafter attempting to make clear the intent of a constitutional provision.
The controlling question then becomes whether subsections (a) and (c) contain only one subject and matter directly connected therewith. Subsection (a) identifies a potential revenue source and subsection (c) prescribes a tentative recipient of the revenue. We see no essential distinction between the amendment here and the one we approved in Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So.2d 337 (Fla.1978). We recognize that in Floridians the taxes on casinos, assuming casinos were authorized and taxed, were committed to a specific purpose while here the revenues if any, are only tentatively committed to a specific fund. We do not consider this distinction significant and hold that subsection (c) contains matter directly connected to the authorization for lotteries, subsection (a).
The ballot summary reads as follows:
The Amendment authorizes the state to operate lotteries. It provides a severance clause to retain the above provision should any subsections be held unconstitutional because of more than one subject. The schedule provides, unless changed by law, for the lotteries to be known as the Florida Education Lotteries and for the net proceeds derived to be deposited in a state trust fund, designated State Education Lotteries Trust Fund, for the appropriation by the Legislature.
Appellants/petitioners argue that this summary does not adequately inform the voter of the substance of the amendment as required by section 101.161. We disagree. It is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose. Miami Dolphins v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981). The summary makes clear that the amendment authorizes state lotteries and that the revenues from such lotteries, subject to legislative override, will go to the State Education Lotteries Trust Fund. That is the chief purpose of the amendment and is all that the statute requires. It is true, as appellants/petitioners urge, that the legislature may choose not to authorize lotteries, not appropriate the proceeds to educational uses, and even to divert the proceeds to other uses. However, those questions go to the wisdom of adopting the amendment and it is for the proponents and opponents to make the case for adopting or rejecting the amendment in the public forum.
Appellants Todd, et al., also argue that the sponsors of the amendment committed fraud in inducing voters to sign the initiative petition by promising that a lottery could produce over $300 million annually for Florida. We express no opinion on the accuracy of this promise but note that the petition form signed by the electors is prominently identified as a paid political advertisement. We decline to embroil this Court in the accuracy or inaccuracy of political advertisements clearly identified as such.
Finally, subsection (c) of the proposed amendment provides that the schedule of implementation may be amended by general law. Petitioners Carroll, et al., argue that this permits the legislature to amend a portion of the Constitution by simple majority vote in violation of article XI, section 1. We see no merit in this argument. The clause, if adopted, reflects a decision by the voters to leave the ultimate disposition of the proceeds received from lotteries, if established, to the discretion of the legislature. Such delegations of authority to the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government is not unusual or constitutionally infirm. Our Constitution consists in large part of a delegation of discretionary authority to the three branches of government and numerous provisions of the Constitution are contingent on general law. See, for example, article I, sections 15(b) and 22; article II, section 8; article III, section 14; article IV, section 4; article V, section 1; article X, section 13; and others too numerous to list.
We affirm the judgment below and deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
No petition for rehearing will be entertained.
It is so ordered.
I concur in the Court's conclusion that the proposed amendment embraces only one subject and matter directly connected therewith and therefore meets the constitutional standard set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n
...single-subject limitation was to prevent logrolling. 457 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 In summary, the 1885 Florida Constitution had a requirement that ......
-
Advisory Opinion to Attorney General Limited Political Terms in Certain Electric Offices, GENERAL--LIMITED
...v. Firestone, 421 So.2d at 155. However, it need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986); Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d at 305; Miami Dolphins Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981, 987 The chief pur......
-
Advisory Opinion re 1.35% Property Tax Cap
...the chief purpose of the measure, they need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. See Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986). However, the ballot must give the voter fair notice of the decision he must make. See Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151,......
-
Advisory Opinion re Nonpartisa Com'n
...the chief purpose of the measure, they need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986). The ballot must, however, give the voter fair notice of the decision he or she must make. Askew, 421 So.2d at 155. The purpo......