single-subject requirement in Florida

2024“The purpose of the single-subject requirement is to allow 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.” Fine, 448 So. 2d at 993 .

2024Because the single-subject requirement in the citizen initiative context is narrower than the one in the legislative context, see Franklin, 887 So. 2d at 1077 -78 (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 988-89 (Fla. 1984)), I assume the narrower reading of the term “subject” as non-synonymous with purpose in the legislative context applies with at least equal force in the citizen initiative context. - 29 - nature or involving a particular and often specified thing or relation’] directly [‘without equivocation,’ ‘straightforward,’ ‘plainly and not by implication,’ and ‘in unmistakable terms

2015SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT The single-subject requirement is at its base a “rule of restraint” designed to protect Florida’s organic law from “precipitous and cataclysmic change.” In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. — Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Fla.1994).

2015As we reiterated in Save Our Everglades, “We have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even though they affected multiple branches of government.” 636 So.2d at 1340 n. 1 (emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. — Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So.2d 225, 227 (Fla.1991)).

2024But it is only “when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches that it violates the single-subject test.’ ” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 795 - 14 - (emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla. 1998)); see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Hum.

2017As to the second part of the single-subject analysis, this Court has explained that “[a] proposal that affects several branches of government will not -6- 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).

2007The single-subject rule prevents logrolling, "a practice wherein several separate issues are rolled into a single initiative in order to aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular issue." See In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen.—Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Fla.1994); see also Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla.1994) ("A primary purpose for the single-subject restriction is to prevent `logrolling,' a *478 practice whereby an amendment is proposed which contains unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to support, in o

2007The single-subject rule prevents logrolling, "a practice wherein several separate issues are rolled into a single initiative in order to aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular issue." See In re Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen.—Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Fla.1994); see also Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla.1994) ("A primary purpose for the single-subject restriction is to prevent `logrolling,' a *478 practice whereby an amendment is proposed which contains unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to support, in o

2021Prior to the enactment of chapter 2020-15, Laws of Florida, this Court repeatedly recognized that our inquiry is limited “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 Water & Land Conservation--Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013).

2021Prior to the enactment of chapter 2020-15, Laws of Florida, this Court repeatedly recognized that our inquiry is limited “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 Water & Land Conservation--Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013).

2006The Court reasoned that “[t]he educational funding amendment violated the single-subject principle because its rigid funding percentage actually performed the appropriation function of the Legislature and removed entirely the Governor’s ability to veto any portion of that appropriation.” High Speed Monorail, 769 So.2d at 370 (discussing this Court’s reasoning in Adequate Public Education Funding, 703 So.2d 446 ).

2006In High Speed Monorail, this Court found no violation of the single-subject rule where the proposed amendment did not require the Legislature to spend a specific percentage of the budget or even a specific amount, nor point to a specific tax or fee from which the revenues for the project would come. 769 So.2d at 370 .

2024As early as 1978, we largely relied upon City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 19 So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 1944), to support our “oneness of purpose” approach to the single-subject clause in article XI, section 3.

2004In determining compliance with the single-subject requirement, this Court examines the amendment to determine whether it evinces a “logical and natural oneness of purpose.” Fine, 448 So.2d at 990 (citing City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 154 Fla. 881 , 19 So.2d 318, 320 (1944), and stating that “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’ ” and that “ ‘[ujnity of object and plan is the universal test’ ”).

2016The opponents of the initiative assert that this case involves single-subject violations similar to those in Evans v. Firestone, 457 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984), and Fairness Initiative, cases in which this Court determined the proposed amendment violated the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.

2016The opponents of the initiative assert that this case involves single-subject violations similar to those in Evans v. Firestone, 457 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1984), and Fairness Initiative, cases in which this Court determined the proposed amendment violated the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.

2018Appellant relies on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 627 (Fla. 2000), where the Florida Supreme Court held that Chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject rule of Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.

2013In Heggs , this Court held that the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional as violative of the single-subject rule. 759 So.2d at 621 . .

2015As we reiterated in Save Our Everglades, “We have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even though they affected multiple branches of government.” 636 So.2d at 1340 n. 1 (emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. — Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So.2d 225, 227 (Fla.1991)).

2015As we reiterated in Save Our Everglades, “We have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even though they affected multiple branches of government.” 636 So. 2d at 1340 n.1 (emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Limited Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1991)).

2024This Court concluded that the proposed initiative violated the single-subject rule because “it enumerate[d] ten classifications of people that would be entitled to protection from discrimination if the amendment were passed.” Id. (“[A] voter may - 12 - want to support protection from discrimination for people based on race and religion, but oppose protection based on marital status and familial status.”).

2015We recognize that “enfolding disparate subjects within the cloak of a broad generality does not satisfy the single-subject requirement.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. — Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla.1994) (quoting Evans v. Firestone, 457 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1984)).

2004See, e.g., Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 491 (Fla.1994) (concluding that proposed amendment violated the single-subject requirement because it combined the subjects of taxes and fees); Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d at 1341 (holding that initiative’s dual objectives, i.e., to restore the Everglades and to compel the sugar industry to fund the restoration, constituted impermissible logrolling); Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d 563 (Fla.1998) (holding that proposed amendment was “

2002Gen. re People’s Property Rights Amendments, 699 So.2d 1304, 1310 (Fla.1997) (observing that an initiative which combines revenue limitation or methods of revenue raising and other subjects must comply with the single-subject requirement); Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d at 496 (Fla.1994) (invalidating a proposed constitutional tax limitation amendment for failure to comply with the existing single-subject limitation, even though the proposed amendment accompanied another constitutional proposal which, if passed, would remove from the constitution the single-subject limitation as applied to initiati

2024See Medical Marijuana II, 181 So. 3d at 477-78 (finding a similar proposed amendment to legalize medical marijuana did not “substantially alter” the functions of multiple branches even though multiple branches were required to comply with the provision). -9- B Having decided that the proposed amendment meets the constitution’s single-subject requirement, we now turn to the statutory directive.

2020“In evaluating whether a proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement, the Court must determine whether it has a -4- ‘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 ).

2004The single-subject requirement is a “rule of restraint” that was “placed in the constitution by the people to allow the citizens, by initiative petition, to propose and vote on singular changes in the functions of our governmental structure.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So.2d 972, 975 (Fla.1997) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla.1984)).

2004The single-subject requirement is a “rule of restraint” that was “placed in the constitution by the people to allow the citizens, by initiative petition, to propose and vote on singular changes in the functions of our governmental structure.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So.2d 972, 975 (Fla.1997) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla.1984)).

2011Citing State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993), among other authorities, the trial court ruled the single-subject challenge became moot when the Legislature reenacted chapter 2009-96 and adopted it as part of the 2010 Florida Statutes.

2000That chapter was held to have violated the single-subject rule in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1993).

1993In Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review fending, No. 79,150, this court concluded that Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, amending section 775.084, violated the single-subject rule of the Florida Constitution, which constitutional infirmity was rectified when the act was reenacted as a part of the Florida Statutes.

1992This court has previously held that chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, which amended inter alia section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes, the habitual violent felony offender provision under which appellant was sentenced, violates the single-subject rule of the Florida Constitution. 1 Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

2024The single-subject requirement is intended to “prevent[] a proposal ‘from engaging in either of two practices: (a) logrolling; or (b) substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple branches of state government.’ ” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 795 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands (Water & Land Conservation), 123 2.

2024We have explained that “a proposed amendment may ‘delineate a number of guidelines’ consistent with the single-subject requirement as long as these components possess ‘a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.’ ” - 11 - Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 796 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legis.

2001However, the Florida Supreme Court, in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999) held that Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, which created the crime, was unconstitutional as violating the single-subject rule.

2000Also, the Supreme Court of Florida has decided in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), reh’g denied, 750 So.2d 643 (Feb. 22, 2000), that the law which provided enhanced sentencing for violent career criminals, Ch. 95-182, secs. 1-7, 12, Laws of Fla. (1995), violated the single-subject rule.

2017Similarly, in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Fee on Everglades Sugar Production, 681 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1996), this Court concluded that the proposal did not violate the single-subject rule because “[t]he imposition of the fee and the designation of the revenue . . . [were] two components directly connected to the fundamental policy of requiring first processors to contribute towards ongoing Everglades restoration efforts.” Id. at 1128 .

2017Similarly, in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Fee on Everglades Sugar Production, 681 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1996), this Court concluded that the proposal did not violate the single-subject rule because “[t]he imposition of the fee and the designation of the revenue . . . [were] two components directly connected to the fundamental policy of requiring first processors to contribute towards ongoing Everglades restoration efforts.” Id. at 1128 .

2005The Court ruled that the proposed amendment violat ed the single-subject requirement because it would have had a “substantial impact ... on both the legislative and executive branches of government,” and a “distinct and substantial effect on more than one level of government.” Id. at 1308 .

2002Gen. re People’s Property Rights Amendments, 699 So.2d 1304, 1310 (Fla.1997) (observing that an initiative which combines revenue limitation or methods of revenue raising and other subjects must comply with the single-subject requirement); Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d at 496 (Fla.1994) (invalidating a proposed constitutional tax limitation amendment for failure to comply with the existing single-subject limitation, even though the proposed amendment accompanied another constitutional proposal which, if passed, would remove from the constitution the single-subject limitation as applied to initiati

2020Ballot Title and Summary 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)).

2020Ballot Title and Summary 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)).

2018Charter Review Comm. of Orange County v. Scott , 647 So.2d 835 , 837 (Fla. 1994) ; see Term Limits Pledge , 718 So.2d at 801 ("The single-subject requirement applies only to the citizen initiative method of amending the constitution.").

2000In 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 Opinion to the Attorney General re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d 798, 802 (Fla.1998) (quoting Fine, 448 So.2d at 990 ).

2020“In evaluating whether a proposed amendment -4- 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 ).

2020“In evaluating whether a proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement, the Court must determine whether it has a -4- ‘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 ).

2016This Court has also held that the invalidation of a comprehensive revision to the Workers’ Compensation law for a single-subject violation should operate prospectively to avoid “the substantial impact on the entire workers’ compensation system if we were to hold [the chapter law] void ab initio.” Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So. 2d 1167, 1176 (Fla. 1991).

2016Accordingly, I concur in result. .This Court has also held that the invalidation of a comprehensive revision to the Workers’ Compensation law for a single-subject violation should operate prospectively to avoid "the substantial impact on the entire workers’ compensation system if we were to hold [the chapter law] void ab initio.” Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1176 (Fla.1991).

2017“When determining the validity of an amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, our inquiry is limited to two legal issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the re quirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.” Id. (citing Advisory Op. re Right to Treatment & Rehab., 818 So.2d at 494 ).

2017“When determining the validity of an amendment arising through the citizen initiative process, our inquiry is limited to two legal issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.” Id. (citing Advisory Op. re Right to Treatment & Rehab., 818 So. 2d at 494 ).

2024See Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let’s Help Fla., 363 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 1978).

1984I conclude that our decisions in Weber v. Smathers, 338 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1976), Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1978), Fine v. Firestone , and the instant case are totally consistent in their application of the single-subject requirement.

2007A. Single-Subject Rule The single-subject requirement has two components: “(1) it prevents ‘logrolling,’ a practice that combines separate issues into a single proposal to secure passage of an unpopular issue; and (2) it ‘prevents] a single constitutional amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple aspects of government.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Adviso ry Op. to the Att’y Gen. re the Med.

2007A. Single-Subject Rule The single-subject requirement has two components: “(1) it prevents ‘logrolling,’ a practice that combines separate issues into a single proposal to secure passage of an unpopular issue; and (2) it ‘prevents] a single constitutional amendment from substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple aspects of government.’ “ Id. (quoting Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re the Med.

2007In Public Education Funding, this Court found that a proposed amendment requiring that the Legislature spend forty percent of its annual budget on education, not including lottery proceeds and federal funds, violated the single-subject rule. 703 So.2d at 447 .

2006The Court reasoned that “[t]he educational funding amendment violated the single-subject principle because its rigid funding percentage actually performed the appropriation function of the Legislature and removed entirely the Governor’s ability to veto any portion of that appropriation.” High Speed Monorail, 769 So.2d at 370 (discussing this Court’s reasoning in Adequate Public Education Funding, 703 So.2d 446 ).

2018Charter Review Comm. of Orange County v. Scott , 647 So.2d 835 , 837 (Fla. 1994) ; see Term Limits Pledge , 718 So.2d at 801 ("The single-subject requirement applies only to the citizen initiative method of amending the constitution.").

1998Fla. 62-54 (1962), noting that two constitutional amendments, each concerned with the same subject matter, may be submitted for approval or rejection at the same general election. 11 39 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1949). 12 Id . at 808. 13 And see , Charter Review Commission of Orange County v. Scott , 647 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1994), using the State Constitution revision process for guidance in analyzing the county charter adoption process under Part II, Chapter 125 , Fla. Stat., and determining that the single-subject rule does not apply to ballot questions containing county charter revisions proposed by char