Fine v. Firestone
| Decision Date | 27 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 64739,64739 |
| Parties | Martin FINE, Petitioner, v. George FIRESTONE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Irwin J. Block, Stuart L. Simon and Burt S. Hellman of Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan & Simon, and Arthur J. England, Jr. of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Mitchell D. Franks, Chief Trial Counsel and Eric J. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Dennis M. O'Connor, Coral Gables, amicus curiae for Floridians for Tax Relief, Florida Citizens for Tax Relief and Limit Government Committee, George Schulte, Ed Havill and Y.Y. Phillips, Jr.
Bruce Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida.
Earl B. Hadlow and Robert J. Winicki of Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams, Jacksonville, amicus curiae for Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Scott Carruthers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida Educ. Ass'n/United.
Judith A. Brechner, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Ralph D. Turlington.
Ronald A. Zumbrun, John H. Findley and Joseph E. Maloney, Sacramento, Cal., and James F. Pollack, Coral Gables, amicus curiae for Pacific Legal Foundation.
Robert E. Gibson, Tallahassee, amicus curiae.
Joseph W. Little, Gainsville, amicus curiae.
Petitioner, Martin Fine, sought an extraordinary writ from the First District Court of Appeal directing the secretary of state to remove from the 1984 general election ballot a proposed constitutional amendment identified as Citizens' Choice on Government Revenue. In an opinion reported as Fine v. Firestone, 443 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the district court declined to issue the extraordinary writ but certified the following questions to this Court:
WHETHER THE PROPOSED REVENUE LIMITATION AMENDMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS PRESENTLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO A DUE PROCESS CHALLENGE UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Id. at 257. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
In summary, we find that the extraordinary writ of mandamus is a proper means for resolving the strictly legal issue of whether the Citizens' Choice proposal addresses more than one subject in violation of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. We therefore answer the first certified question in the affirmative.
We hold that the Citizens' Choice proposal clearly violates the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. We find that the proposal includes at least three subjects, each of which affects a separate existing function of government. First, it limits how governments can tax, thereby affecting the general operation of state and local government. Second, it restricts all government user-fee operations, such as garbage collection, water, electric, gas, and transportation services which are paid for by the users of the services. Third, it affects the funding of capital improvements through revenue bonds, which are financed from revenue generated by the capital improvements. Accordingly, the second certified question is answered in the negative.
Having so answered the second certified question, it is unnecessary for this Court to address the third certified question. 1 The reasons for our holdings are fully expressed below.
The proposed amendment originated with an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment entitled "Citizens' Choice on Government Revenue." The initiative petition was signed by the requisite number of voters and was approved by the secretary of state for inclusion on the 1984 general election ballot as Amendment One. The ballot summary and full language of the proposed constitutional provision read as follows:
Ballot title and summary:
CITIZENS' CHOICE ON GOVERNMENT REVENUE
Limits the state and each taxing unit to 1980-81 revenue dollars plus ad valorem taxes on subsequent new construction and annual adjustments of two-thirds of the Consumer Price Index percentage change; however, the maximum annual adjustment increase for ad valorem taxes is five percent. Revenue limits may be exceeded only with voter approval, for specified purposes, amounts and periods. Enforcement is by setting aside excess revenue, reduction of rates and taxpayer suits. Includes related provisions.
The following new section is added to Article VII of the Florida Constitution:
CITIZENS' CHOICE ON GOVERNMENT REVENUE:
(a) Revenue received by the state and by each taxing unit for each fiscal period shall be limited to the revenue limit for the preceeding [sic] fiscal period plus the annual adjustment and any ad valorem taxes on improvements due to new construction subject to assessment for the first time.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) revenue includes ad valorem taxes, other taxes and all other receipts, but excludes receipts from the United States government and its instrumentalities, bonds issued, loans received and the cost of investments sold. Receipts of agencies and instrumentalities and proprietary and trust funds shall be included in the revenue of the state or other taxing unit as appropriate.
(2) the annual adjustment for each fiscal period shall be the revenue limit of the preceeding [sic] fiscal period times two-thirds of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items, 1967 = 100, or successor reports, for the preceeding [sic] calendar year, as initially reported by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; however for ad valorem taxes no annual adjustment increase shall exceed five percent of the ad valorem taxes of preceeding [sic] fiscal period.
(3) each fiscal period shall be twelve months[.]
(4) the initial revenue limit, for the first fiscal period beginning after the effective date of this section, shall be calculated by using the revenue in the fiscal period beginning in 1980, plus subsequent changes due to annual adjustments and ad valorem taxes on new construction, as if this section had been in effect.
(c) Revenue collected in excess of a revenue limit shall be placed in escrow until the following fiscal period, in which period it shall be deemed revenue received, and applicable rates shall be reduced in an amount reasonably calculated to comply with the revenue limits of this section.
(d) When authorized by vote of the electors of a taxing jurisdiction:
(1) revenue limits may be exceeded for specified purposes and amounts, for not longer than two fiscal periods;
(2) revenue limits may be exceeded to provide for principal and interest payments on designated bonds for specified purposes.
(3) a taxing unit may use its first fiscal period, in lieu of one beginning in 1980, for determining initial revenue limits.
(e) Revenue limits may be exceeded to the extent necessary to avoid impairment of obligations of contracts and bonds existing on the effective date of this section.
(f) Any taxpayer of the state shall have standing to bring suit to enforce this section and, if successful, shall recover costs and attorney fees from the taxing jurisdiction.
Fine instituted this action claiming that the proposed amendment violates both the single-subject rule of the Florida Constitution and the due process clause of the federal constitution. He sought, in the First District Court of Appeal, to have the amendment removed from the ballot by an extraordinary writ. In denying relief, the district court first held that petitioner's assertions required fact-finding and that there was an available remedy by declaratory judgment or injunction in the circuit court. The district court, however, then proceeded to address the merits of the petition. On the merits, the district court, relying primarily on this Court's decisions in Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So.2d 337 (Fla.1978), and Weber v. Smathers, 338 So.2d 819 (Fla.1976), found that "the proposed amendment in this case contains various elements within the ambit of the single subject of revenue limitation, and that petitioner has not established that the proposal is 'clearly and conclusively defective' within the purview of Article XI, Section 3, Florida Constitution." 443 So.2d at 257. The district court also rejected petitioner's contention that the proposal violates the due process clause of the federal constitution. The court then certified the previously quoted questions.
The first question is whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of the Citizens' Choice proposal in this type of proceeding. We find that mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this case. In our view, the situation presented here is similar to those presented in Republican State Executive Committee v. Graham, 388 So.2d 556 (Fla.1980), and State ex rel. Citizens Proposition for Tax Relief v. Firestone, 386 So.2d 561 (Fla.1980), which involved straightforward legal questions which did not require fact-finding. The issue of whether the Citizens' Choice proposal violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution is, in our view, strictly legal in nature. The resolution of this issue requires no findings of fact. It requires only a construction of the terms of the proposal. Having concluded that only a legal issue is involved, we exercise our discretionary authority to decide the single-subject constitutional issue.
The primary question before this Court is whether there is more than one subject contained in the Citizens'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Harris
...for public hearing and debate not only on the proposal itself but also in the drafting of any constitutional proposal. Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla. 1984). My view is further bolstered by the express provision in the Constitution for this Court to review citizens' initiatives.......
-
Nevadans for Prop. Rights v. Sec'Y of State, 47825.
...contains more than one subject and declining to sever offending portions in compliance with the state constitution); Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 992-93 (Fla.1984) (holding that citizen initiate violated constitutional single-subject requirement and affirming removal from 40. We recent......
-
Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n
...property in Florida. Yet, even that would not have been anything nearly as egregious a case of logrolling as HCR 41. In Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla.1984), the Court receded from its position in Floridians, supra, holding, that whether or not more than one section were in fact goin......
-
Perez v. State
...that the cases cited were not actually overruled or that a "special reason" existed for overruling them. For example, in Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla.1984), this Court did not overrule Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So.2d 337 (Fla.1978). In fact, in F......
-
Kurt G. Kastorf, Logrolling Gets Logrolled: Same-sex Marriage, Direct Democracy, and the Single Subject Rule
...(2001); see, e.g., Perry v. Jordan, 207 P.2d 47, 49-50 (Cal. 1949). Florida may be the exception to this trend. See Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 988-89 (Fla. 1984). 12 See, e.g., ROBERT LUCE, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE 548 (1922). 13 See, e.g., Ruud, supra note 7, at 389. 14 See, e.g., Dan......
-
Constitution revision commissions avoid logrolling, don't they?
...Commission: Unifies Marine Fisheries and Game and Fresh Water Fish Commissions, No. 91,193 (Fla., Jan. 8, 1998). [23] Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 98788 (Fla. [24] Id. at 988 (emphasis added). [25] Id. [26] Id. at 995 (McDonald, J., concurring). [27] See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 077......