House Plan Targets Ballot Initiatives to Change Constitution
Democrats said it would infringe on First Amendment rights. Republicans argued it's needed to “maintain the integrity and purpose of the state Constitution.”
March 29, 2019 at 01:43 PM
4 minute read
A partisan clash over changing Florida's Constitution was in full view when a House panel approved a proposal that would make it harder for citizens and groups to put measures on the ballot.
On one side, Democrats said the Legislature would infringe on First Amendment rights by adding hurdles to the citizen-initiative process. But the Republican lawmaker sponsoring the proposal argued changes are needed to “maintain the integrity and purpose of the state Constitution.”
“The purpose for this is the fact that a Constitution should behave like a Constitution,” Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, argued during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, which advanced the proposal (PCB JDC 19-01) in a 12-6 party-line vote.
The proposal comes after voters approved 11 constitutional amendments, including two citizens' initiatives, during the November election. The other nine amendments were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.
It also comes as groups gather petition signatures to get potentially high-profile issues on the 2020 ballot, such as a proposal that would raise the state's minimum wage. The minimum-wage proposal is being spearheaded by Orlando lawyer John Morgan, who also led a successful effort in 2016 to pass a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
To get on the ballot, supporters of those initiatives will have to submit 766,200 valid petition signatures to the state and get Florida Supreme Court approval of amendment wording.
The House bill that moved forward Thursday would make it illegal to use out-of-state petition gatherers or to pay them by the number of petitions they collect. It also would require amendments to say if the proposed changes to the Constitution “may require increased taxes or a reduction in government services that are currently funded.”
Under the proposal, petition gatherers would have to be Florida residents and register with the secretary of state. It also would allow “any person of interest” to submit a 50-word position statement to outline “why the person supports or opposes the amendment.” Those statements would be posted on the Department of State's website.
The attorney general would also have the authority to ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether proposed amendments are policy changes that the Legislature could make in lieu of amending the Constitution. That answer — a yes or a no — would be required to be printed on the ballot measure for voters to see.
“On the ballot, we want to ensure that when someone walks in to vote, they understand what they are voting on,” Grant said. “The voters should know, 'Do I agree with x enough to pay the price tag on it?' ”
The legislation would impact proposed constitutional changes on the 2020 ballot.
History shows that ballot measures are often backed by big money. For example, Disney Worldwide Services Inc. and the Seminole Tribe of Florida bankrolled an amendment on the November ballot that is designed to make it harder to expand gambling in the state. Also, it has been common for out-of-state firms to be hired to gather petition signatures.
Two environmental groups, however, chastised the House proposal because they argued it is designed to discourage citizens from pursuing ballot initiatives.
“To us, this bill is transparent in that the Legislature wants sole authority to put things on the ballot,” said David Cullen, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club. “Have a little respect for future voters who disagree with you … that's the essence of democracy.”
State Rep. Joseph Geller, D-Aventura, was upset that committee members were not given more time to discuss the petition process under the proposal, which emerged this week. He said he agrees some restrictions ought to be in place, but that there was “too much coming too late.”
“I think some restrictions are needed and we need to take a good look at this, but I feel rushed,” Geller said.
Ana Ceballos 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
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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