In re Voting Restoration Amendment
| Decision Date | 20 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. SC16–1981,No. SC16–1785,SC16–1785,SC16–1981 |
| Parties | ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: VOTING RESTORATION AMENDMENT. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Voting Restoration Amendment (FIS). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Ellen B. Gwynn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner
Jon L. Mills of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Miami, Florida; and Andrew M. Starling, Orlando Florida, for Floridians for a Fair Democracy, Sponsor
Ion Sancho, Former Supervisor of Elections for Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida; and Dr. Brenda Snipes, Supervisor of Elections for Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as Proponents
The Attorney General of Florida has requested this Court's opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.
On October 4, 2016, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition sponsored by Floridians for a Fair Democracy ("the Sponsor") and circulated, pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The Sponsor submitted a brief supporting the validity of the initiative petition.
The full text of the proposed amendment to article VI, section 4 of the Florida Constitution states:
The ballot title for the amendment is: "Voter Restoration Amendment." The ballot summary states:
This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.
On October 28, 2016, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference forwarded to the Attorney General a financial impact statement on the initiative petition. On November 1, 2016, the Attorney General requested this Court's opinion as to whether the financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference on the constitutional amendment is in accordance with section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2016). The financial impact statement regarding the Voter Restoration Amendment states:
The precise effect of this amendment on state and local government costs cannot be determined, but the operation of current voter registration laws, combined with an increased number of felons registering to vote, will produce higher overall costs relative to the processes in place today. The impact, if any, on state and local government revenues cannot be determined. The fiscal impact of any future legislation that implements a different process cannot be reasonably determined.
No briefs or comments were submitted to this Court in response to the financial impact statement.
We have explained the standard of review for citizen initiative petitions as follows:
"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.’ " In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions (Medical Marijuana I ), 132 So.3d 786, 794 (Fla. 2014) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non–Violent Drug Offenses , 818 So.2d 491, 494 (Fla. 2002) ). This Court does "not consider or address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment" and must "act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people." In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply , 177 So.3d 235, 242 (Fla. 2015) ().
When this Court renders an advisory opinion concerning a proposed constitutional amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, the Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the amendment itself satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution ; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary satisfy the clarity requirements of section 101.161, Florida Statutes.
Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions (Medical Marijuana II ), 181 So.3d 471, 476 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation–Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands (Water & Land Conservation ), 123 So.3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013) ). Accordingly, we are obligated to uphold the proposal unless it is "clearly and conclusively defective." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla.'s Amend. to Reduce Class Size , 816 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2002).
Solar Energy , 188 So.3d at 827–28. This Court has further explained that "[a] proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail; rather, it is when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches that it violates the single-subject test." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n , 705 So.2d 1351, 1353–54 (Fla. 1998).
Here, the initiative has "a logical and natural oneness of purpose," specifically, whether Floridians wish to include a provision in our state constitution permitting the restoration of voting rights to Floridians with felony convictions, excluding those with murder and felony sex offenses, once they have completed all of the terms of their sentences. The proposed amendment's provision excluding persons with convictions for murder or felony sex offenses is directly connected with this purpose. Furthermore, this exclusion removes a class of offenders from automatic voter restoration eligibility based on the nature of their offenses, thus removing the possibility that voters be forced to "accept part of an initiative proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the constitution which they support." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legis. Dist. Boundaries , 2 So.3d 175, 180 (Fla. 2009) (). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not engage in impermissible logrolling. See Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation System , 769 So.2d at 369 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial