Number:
PETITION
Issued
The Honorable Harry Lee Anstead
Chief Justice, and Justices of
The Supreme Court of Florida
The Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Dear Chief Justice Anstead and Justices:
In accordance with the provisions of Article IV, section 10, Florida Constitution, and section 16.061, Florida Statutes, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to petition this Honorable Court for a written opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution.
On May 11, 2004, this office received from the Secretary of State an initiative petition seeking to amend the Florida Constitution to provide an increase in the homestead exemption on property assessments by an additional $25,000. The full text of the proposed amendment states:
"BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
ARTICLE VII Section 6 of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended to add the following paragraph (g).
(g) By general law and subject to conditions specified therein, effective for assessments for 2005 and each year thereafter, an additional homestead exemption of twenty-five thousand dollars shall be granted to any person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner."
The ballot title for the proposed amendment is "Additional Homestead Tax Exemption." The summary for the proposed amendment states:
"This amendment provides property tax relief to Florida home owners by increasing the homestead exemption on property assessments by an additional $25,000."
Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, provides in relevant part:
"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, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith."
As the Court recently stated, "[t]his single-subject requirement 'allow[s] the citizens to vote on singular changes in our government that are identified in the proposal and to avoid voters having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change which they support.'" Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, Case No. SC03-857 (Fla., filed May 13, 2004), quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 993 (Fla. 1984). The single-subject provision "is a rule of restraint designed to insulate Florida's organic law from precipitous and cataclysmic change." Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General--Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (Fla. 1994); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General--Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1994).
To comply with the single-subject requirement, an initiative must manifest a "logical and natural oneness of purpose." Fine v. Firestone, supra at 990 ("'in determining whether a proposal addresses a single subject the test is whether it 'may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme'"}. This Court stated in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General--Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1994), that "[t]o ascertain whether the necessary 'oneness of purpose' exists, we must consider whether the proposal affects separate functions of government and how the proposal affects other provisions of the constitution."
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:
"Whenever a constitutional amendment . . . is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment . . . shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot . . . . The wording of the substance of the amendment . . . 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."
This Court has recognized that "[t]his requirement provides the voters with fair notice of the contents of the proposed initiative so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot." Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General--People's Property Rights Amendments Providing Compensation for Restricting Real Property Use May Cover Multiple Subjects, 699 So. 2d 1304, 1307 (Fla. 1997); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, Case No. SC03-857 (Fla., filed May 13, 2004).
Thus, this Court stated "that the ballot [must] be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot." Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 155 (Fla. 1982), quoting, Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 1954). While the ballot title and summary must state in clear and unambiguous language 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, however, must give the voter fair notice of the decision he must make. Askew v. Firestone, supra at 155.
Therefore, I respectfully request this Honorable Court's opinion as to whether the constitutional amendment, proposed by initiative petition, complies with Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and whether the amendment's ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161, Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
Charlie Crist
Attorney General
CC/tgk
cc: Ms. Glenda Hood
Secretary of State
The Honorable Jeb Bush
Governor, State of Florida
The Honorable James E. "Jim" King
President, Florida Senate
The Honorable Johnnie Byrd
Speaker, Florida House of Representatives
Mr. Jeffrey Saull, Chair
Families for Lower Property Taxes