Fla. Dep't of State v. Fla. State CONFERENCE of NAACP BRANCHES

• Decision Date: 31 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. SC10-1375.,SC10-1375.
• Citation: 43 So.3d 662
• Parties: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

43 So.3d 662

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Appellees.

No. SC10-1375.

Supreme Court of Florida.

August 31, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

R. Dean Cannon of Dean Cannon, P.A., Winter Park, FL, Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, Jonathan A. Glogau, Office of the Attorney General, Peter M. Dunbar, Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, and Brian A. Newman of Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, C.B. Upton, General Counsel, Florida Department of State, and George N. Meros, Jr., Allen Winsor and Andy Bardos of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, and Miguel De Grandy, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Appellants.

Ronald G. Meyer, Jennifer S. Blohm, and Lynn C. Hearn of Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A., Mark Herron and Robert J. Telfer, III of Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellees.

Erik M. Figlio, J. Andrew Atkinson, and Simonne Lawrence, Executive Office of The Governor, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of Governor Charlie Crist, as Amicus Curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Department of State, Dawn K. Roberts in her official capacity as the Secretary of State, the Florida Senate, and the Florida House of Representatives ("Roberts and the Legislature"), appealed to the First District Court of Appeal from a July 12, 2010, judgment of the circuit court striking a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment from the November 2010 general election ballot. The First District certified to this Court that the judgment is of great public importance and that the appeal requires immediate resolution by this Court under our jurisdiction set forth in article V, section 3(b)(5), of the Florida Constitution. We agreed and granted expedited review to decide the question of great public importance— whether proposed Amendment 7, amending article III of the Florida Constitution, meets the requirements of Florida law for inclusion on the November 2010 ballot. As further explained below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court striking proposed Amendment 7 from the ballot because the ballot language fails to inform the voter of the chief purpose and effect the amendment will have on existing, mandatory constitutional provisions in article III.

1. FACTS

On May 18, 2010, the Florida Legislature filed with the Florida Secretary of State a joint legislative resolution, Fla. H.J. Res. 7231 (2010) (HJR 7231), proposing an amendment to article III of the Florida Constitution. The amendment, designated Amendment 7 for the November 2010 general election ballot, would add section 20 to article III of the constitution as follows:

SECTION 20. Standards for establishing legislative and congressional district boundaries.—In establishing congressional and legislative district boundaries or plans, the state shall apply federal requirements and balance and implement the standards in this constitution. The state shall take into consideration the ability of racial and language minorities to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, and communities of common interest other than political parties may be respected and promoted, both without subordination to any other provision of this article. Districts and plans are valid if the balancing and implementation of standards is rationally related to the standards contained in this constitution and is consistent with federal law.

Section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2009), provides that whenever a constitutional amendment is proposed for submission to a vote of the people, the substance of the amendment shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot.¹See § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). We have held that "[t]he purpose of section 101.161(1) is to assure that the electorate is advised of the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment." Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982). In HJR 7231, the Legislature adopted the following statement, which essentially mirrors the language contained in proposed Amendment 7, and resolved that it be placed on the ballot as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following statement be placed on the ballot:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

ARTICLE III, SECTION 20

STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. —In establishing congressional and legislative district boundaries or plans, the state shall apply federal requirements and balance and implement the standards in the State Constitution. The state shall take into consideration the ability of racial and language minorities to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, and communities of common interest other than political parties may be respected and promoted, both without subordination to any other provision of article III of the State Constitution. Districts and plans are valid if the balancing and implementation of standards is rationally related to the standards contained in the State Constitution and is consistent with federal law.

On May 21, 2010, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the circuit court seeking to prevent placement of proposed Amendment 7 on the November ballot. The suit was filed against the Florida Department of State and Secretary of State Dawn K. Roberts by plaintiffs Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches; Adora Obi Nweze; The League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc.; Deirdre Macnab; Robert Milligan; Nathaniel P. Reed; Democracia Ahora; and Jorge Mursuli. After the complaint was filed, Governor Charlie Crist was allowed to intervene as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs, and the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate were allowed to intervene as defendants in the circuit court.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the ballot title and summary for Amendment 7 fail to inform the voters that the amendment (1) would limit the mandatory application of constitutional standards and allow the Legislature to subordinate existing standards in article III to permissive and vague standards in the amendment; (2) would allow the Legislature to consider but not implement specific protections for minority voters contained in proposed constitutional Amendments 5 and 6, also slated for the November ballot;² (3) would allow the Legislature to "balance" standards in such a way as to create districts favoring or disfavoring incumbents; and (4) is intended to require validation of any district or plan that is related to nonmandatory standards in Amendment 7. The plaintiffs also alleged that the ballot title is misleading in that it purports to provide "standards" for redistricting while actually eliminating them.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a judgment that the proposed amendment fails to advise voters of its chief purpose and true effect. Defendants Roberts and the Legislature filed cross motions for summary judgment. The parties agreed that there existed no disputed issues of material fact, and a final hearing was held on July 8, 2010. On July 12, 2010, the circuit court entered its order granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary final judgment and denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The circuit court's order found that the ballot language does not meet the requirements of section 101.161(1) in that it does not fairly advise the voters of the ramifications of the amendment. As a result, the circuit court enjoined the Department of State from placing Amendment 7 on the November 2010 ballot. In so ruling, the trial judge made the following pertinent findings:

Apart from the number of districts to be drawn, the Florida Constitution currently contains only one requirement binding on the legislature when they meet every ten years to draw districts. That one mandatory requirement is that each district be contiguous. Amendment 7, if it were to pass, would make that one mandatory requirement aspirational only and would subordinate contiguity to the other aspirational goals or "standards" contained in Amendment 7.

. . . .

To be clear, there is nothing unlawful or improper about what the legislative proposal seeks to do. The wisdom of a proposed amendment is not a matter of concern for this Court. But to be legally entitled to a place on the ballot, the summary and title must be fair and must advise the voter sufficiently to enable the voter to intelligently vote for or against the amendment. . . . Requiring that all districts be contiguous is a valuable right afforded to all citizens of Florida. A citizen cannot, and should not, be asked to give up that right without being fully informed and making an intelligent decision to do so.

Amendment 7, if passed, would allow this or any future legislature, if it chose to do so, to gerrymander districts guided by no mandatory requirements or standards and subject to no effective accountability so long as its decisions were rationally related to, and balanced with, the aspirational goals set out in Amendment 7 and the subordinate goal of contiguity.

Thus, the primary basis on which the circuit court invalidated the ballot language was that it failed to inform the voters that article III of the Florida Constitution currently contains a mandatory contiguity requirement which, if Amendment 7 is adopted, could be subordinated to the other considerations set forth in proposed Amendment 7.³ with regard to the true effect of an amendment." Slough 992 So.2d at 147; see also Armstrong, 773 So.2d at 16.

Moreover, we have consistently adhered to the principle "that lawmakers who are asked to consider constitutional changes, and the people who are asked to approve them, must be able to comprehend the sweep of each proposal from a fair notification in the proposition itself that it is neither less nor more extensive than it appears to be." Smathers v. Smith, 338 So.2d 825, 829 (Fla.1976)....