In re All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, & Cabinet.
| Decision Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. SC19-1267,SC19-1267 |
| Citation | 291 So.3d 901 |
| Parties | ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: ALL VOTERS VOTE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR STATE LEGISLATURE, GOVERNOR, AND CABINET. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner
Mark Herron and Robert A. McNeely of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Interested Party, Florida Democratic Party
Benjamin Gibson, Jason Gonzalez, Daniel Nordby, Amber Stoner Nunnally, and Rachel Procaccini of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for Interested Party, Republican Party of Florida
Glenn Burhans, Jr., Tallahassee, Florida, and Eugene E. Stearns of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Interested Party, All Voters Vote, Inc.
The Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition to amend the Florida Constitution titled "All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet" (the Initiative). We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the Initiative complies with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution and that the ballot title and summary comply with the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2019). Accordingly, we approve the Initiative for placement on the ballot.
On July 26, 2019, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an opinion as to the validity of the Initiative, which is sponsored by All Voters Vote, Inc., and was circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution. The sponsor submitted a brief supporting the validity of the Initiative. The Attorney General submitted a brief in opposition, as did the Florida Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Florida.
The Initiative would add several new subsections to article VI, section 5, of the Florida Constitution, and would read as follows:
The ballot title for the Initiative is: "All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet." The ballot summary for the Initiative is:
Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for state legislature, governor, and cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law. Effective January 1, 2024.
When this Court renders an advisory opinion concerning a proposed constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, "[the Court’s] review of the proposed amendment is confined to two issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment itself satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution ; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary satisfy the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (201[9] )." Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of Gambling , 215 So. 3d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 2017). In addressing these two issues, the Court must not address the merits or wisdom of the Initiative. Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ. , 778 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000). Further, the Court has a "duty ... to uphold the proposal unless it can be shown to be ‘clearly and conclusively defective.’ " Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions , 132 So. 3d 786, 795 (Fla. 2014) ( Medical Marijuana I ) (). "This Court has traditionally applied a deferential standard of review to the validity of a citizen initiative petition and ‘has been reluctant to interfere’ with ‘the right of self-determination for all Florida’s citizens’ to formulate ‘their own organic law.’ " Id . at 794 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses , 818 So. 2d 491, 494 (Fla. 2002) ).
The Florida Constitution limits constitutional amendments proposed by citizen initiative to "but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. The Court "require[s] strict compliance with the single-subject rule in the initiative process for constitutional change." Fine v. Firestone , 448 So. 2d 984, 989 (Fla. 1984). "In evaluating whether a proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement, the Court must determine whether it has a ‘logical and natural oneness of purpose.’ " Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Debilitating Conditions , 181 So. 3d 471, 477 (Fla. 2015) ( Medical Marijuana II ) (quoting Treating People Differently Based on Race , 778 So. 2d at 891-92 ). The single-subject requirement prevents an initiative from (1) engaging in logrolling; or (2) substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of government. Id . ; Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands , 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013). An initiative satisfies the oneness of purpose standard—and therefore does not engage in logrolling—"when it ‘may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.’ " Water & Land Conservation , 123 So. 3d at 51 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative Requiring Legislative Determination , 880 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 2004) ).
In the present case, the Initiative has "a logical and natural oneness of purpose," namely to allow all registered voters to vote in primary elections for state legislature, governor, and cabinet. To achieve this, the Initiative provides that all qualified registered voters can vote in such primaries regardless of party affiliation, that candidates qualifying for the specified offices appear on the same ballot, and that the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes advance to the general election. Because each of the Initiative’s components are part of a single dominant plan or scheme, the Initiative does not engage in impermissible logrolling.
Although the interested parties do not dispute whether the Initiative substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches of government, we conclude that the Initiative does not do so. Accordingly, we conclude that the Initiative complies with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution.
Next, we address whether the Initiative will be "accurately represented on the ballot." Medical Marijuana I , 132 So. 3d 786, 797 (Fla. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Harris , 773 So. 2d 7, 12 (Fla. 2000) ). Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2019), which sets forth the requirements for the ballot title and summary of an initiative petition, provides as follows:
[A] ballot summary of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot .... The ballot summary of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. ... The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of.
These statutory requirements serve to ensure that the ballot summary and title "provide fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment" to voters so that they "will not be misled as to [the proposed amendment’s] purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot." Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers , 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1998) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Fee on Everglades Sugar , 681 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 1996) ). This Court has explained that "the ballot title and summary may not be read in isolation, but must be read together in determining whether the ballot information properly informs the voters." Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voluntary Univ. Pre-Kindergarten Educ. , 824 So. 2d 161, 166 (Fla. 2002).
In the present case, the ballot title is composed of twelve words, and the ballot summary is composed of seventy-three words. These respectively fall within the fifteen and...
To continue reading
Request your trial