State Appeals After Judge Blocks Constitution Ballot Measures
Leon County Circuit Judge Karen Gievers issued a seven-page order saying the proposed constitutional amendments improperly “bundled” unrelated issues.
September 10, 2018 at 12:14 PM
4 minute read
Attorney General Pam Bondi's office has quickly appealed a circuit judge's ruling that would block three proposed constitutional amendments from going on the November ballot, including a measure aimed at banning offshore oil drilling and vaping in workplaces.
After hearing arguments Wednesday, Leon County Circuit Judge Karen Gievers issued a seven-page order saying the proposed constitutional amendments improperly “bundled” unrelated issues. Gievers sided with a challenge filed by two plaintiffs, including former Florida Supreme Court Justice Harry Lee Anstead, who contend the proposed amendments would violate voters' First Amendment rights.
But Bondi's office Thursday filed a notice of appeal at the First District Court of Appeal, according to documents posted online Friday. The notice also said the appeal triggers an automatic stay of Gievers' ruling.
Anstead and fellow plaintiff Robert J. Barnas filed the challenge last month against six proposed amendments placed on the Nov. 6 ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. Gievers, however, focused on three of the measures because the other three are the subjects of separate challenges at the Supreme Court.
The challenge contends, in part, that bundling seemingly unrelated issues in single constitutional amendments violates the rights of voters, who could have conflicting views on the issues. For example, a voter could support a constitutional change to ban offshore oil drilling but oppose a ban on vaping or using electronic cigarettes in workplaces.
Gievers agreed with the arguments on each of the three amendments, including the measure known as Amendment 9 that would ban drilling and workplace vaping.
“The court is unconvinced by the respondent's [state's] argument that offshore oil and gas drilling and vaping are germane as they are both environmentally related,” she wrote. “These measures are independent and unrelated and do not constitute a comprehensive plan of revision and cannot be imposed upon the voters as a unit. Voters cannot reasonably answer the statutorily required yes or no question … without potentially being deprived of their First Amendment constitutional right to cast a meaningful vote on each independent and unrelated proposal.”
During arguments Wednesday before Gievers, however, state Deputy Solicitor General Jordan Pratt said the Constitution Revision Commission has the authority to combine multiple constitutional changes in single ballot measures. The 37-member commission meets every 20 years and has unique power to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.
Pratt also said the plaintiffs offered an “unprecedented” legal theory that the First Amendment does not allow the bundling of proposed amendments.
Pratt said there is “no case in the history of the republic, federal or state, that has ever read the First Amendment to guarantee a right to voters not to vote on bundled proposals.”
Along with the proposal on drilling and vaping, Gievers also struck from the ballot a measure, known as Amendment 7, that deals with governance of the state-college system and death benefits for survivors of first responders and military members. Also, she struck a measure, known as Amendment 11, that would remove constitutional language that prohibits “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property and would revise language to make clear the repeal of criminal statutes does not affect the prosecution of crimes committed before the repeal.
Gievers' ruling came as the Supreme Court considers a series of challenges seeking to block other proposed amendments from going on the ballot. The justices last week, for instance, heard arguments about a controversial education amendment and a measure designed to expand crime victims' rights.
In all, Floridians could vote on 13 amendments in November because of decisions by the Constitution Revision Commission and the Legislature and petition drives. It remained unclear Friday morning when the Supreme Court would rule on the cases it is considering.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute read'Horror of Horrors': Florida Judges Spar Over En Banc Review in Binance Ruling
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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