Supreme Court Asked to Block Constitutional Amendments
The plaintiffs take aim at proposed amendments that the Florida Constitution Revision Commission placed on the November ballot.
August 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM
4 minute read
Arguing that Floridians shouldn't be asked to vote on ballot measures that patch together unrelated issues, a legal challenge filed at the state Supreme Court seeks to scuttle six proposed constitutional amendments.
The plaintiffs, including former Supreme Court Justice Harry Lee Anstead, take aim at proposed amendments that the Florida Constitution Revision Commission placed on the November ballot. While individual amendments also face separate lawsuits, the petition filed at the Supreme Court targets six of the eight measures approved this spring by the commission.
The case centers on decisions by the commission to lump together multiple issues into single ballot proposals. For example, one of the measures, known as Amendment 9, asks voters to approve a ban on offshore oil drilling and a ban on vaping and the use of electronic cigarettes in workplaces.
The petition contends, in part, that combining disparate issues in single ballot proposals violates First Amendment rights of voters and is “logrolling” of issues that should be considered separately. It raised the specter of voters having different views of issues in the same ballot proposal, for instance, someone could support a ban on oil drilling but oppose the vaping ban.
“This is logrolling and a form of issue gerrymandering that violates the First Amendment right of the voter to vote for or against specific independent and unrelated proposals to amend the Constitution without paying the price of supporting a measure the voter opposes or opposing a measure the voter supports,” the petition said. “This [Supreme] Court has acknowledged that the right to vote is a fundamental right that may not be abridged in the absence of a compelling and narrowly drawn state interest.”
The 37-member CRC meets every 20 years and has unique power to place proposed constitutional amendments directly on the ballot. Tuesday's legal challenge names as a defendant Secretary of State Ken Detzner, whose office oversees elections.
A spokesman for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who served on the commission, declined comment on the legal challenge.
“As this litigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment at this time,” Bondi spokesman Whitney Ray said in an email.
The Supreme Court gave the state until 5 p.m. Monday to reply to the petition.
Along with the ballot measure about oil drilling and vaping, the challenge targets:
• A proposal that includes expanding the rights of crime victims and raising the mandatory retirement age of judges.
• A proposal dealing with governance of the state-college system and death benefits for survivors of first responders and military members.
• A proposal that would impose term limits on school-board members and require increased “civic literacy” education.
• A proposal that includes changing the start dates of legislative sessions and requiring charter county governments to have elected constitutional officers.
• A proposal that includes removing constitutional language that prohibits “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property and revising language to make clear that the repeal of criminal statutes does not affect the prosecution of crimes committed before the repeal.
The issue of combining multiple issues into single ballot proposals drew controversy during the CRC's deliberations.
“By bundling different proposals together, what we have done is undermine the work that we have undertaken to make sure that each one of the ballot summaries is clear and fairly informs the voters,” commission member Roberto Martinez said during a debate in April.
But member Brecht Heuchan defended the commission's approach, saying during the debate he rejected “the notion that somehow these people are not capable of understanding basic related proposals.”
“Voters are very discerning when they go through their ballots,” Heuchan said. “They show up. They do their job, and they regularly come to conclusions that are accepted by all.”
Barring successful legal challenges, Floridians are slated to vote on 13 proposed constitutional amendments in November. The eight approved by the CRC joined five others placed on the ballot by the Legislature and through petition drives.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida. News Service assignment manager Tom Urban and staff writer Jim Turner contributed to this report.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCarlton Fields Represents Miss America CEO in $500 Million Suit Alleging Bankruptcy Fraud
4 minute readDeSantis Appointed Assistant US Attorney to Broward Circuit Court Bench
2 minute readState Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
4 minute read2 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250