Senators Weigh Clampdown on Constitutional Ballot Initiatives
Democrats say a proposal to make it harder to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot goes too far, with Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez even proposing to name the bill the "Direct Democracy Limitation Act."
February 27, 2020 at 11:54 AM
4 minute read
A proposal that would make it harder to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot is headed to the full Senate, but Democrats — and some Republicans — say it goes too far.
The Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday voted 10-7 to approve the bill (SB 7094), which would place a series of new restrictions on the ballot-initiative process. But opponents attacked the measure, with one Democratic senator even proposing to name the bill the "Direct Democracy Limitation Act."
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Travis Hutson, R-St. Augustine, comes after years of efforts by Republican lawmakers and powerful groups, such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce, to address what they see as a proliferation of ballot initiatives that clutter the state Constitution.
In supporting the bill on Wednesday, Senate Appropriations Chairman Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, said the Constitution is the state's "fundamental law" that sets up the basic structure of government and basic rights.
"It is not designed to write a budget," Bradley said. "It is not designed to set run-of-the-mill policy."
But opponents argue that the initiative process provides an avenue for citizens to make changes when the Legislature is unresponsive to public wishes. They point to initiatives that have passed in recent years on issues such as setting aside money for land and water conservation and broadly legalizing medical marijuana.
"The citizens' initiative process is seen as a way to check this legislature, when this legislature refuses to act on things like land and water conservation, minimum wage, medical marijuana and those sorts of things," said Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Miami Democrat who unsuccessfully proposed the "Direct Democracy Limitation Act" name.
The bill focuses, in part, on the costly and time-consuming process of collecting and verifying petition signatures to reach the ballot.
As an example, to get proposed constitutional amendments on the 2020 ballot, committees needed to submit 766,200 valid petition signatures to the state and receive approval from the Florida Supreme Court of the ballot wording.
To trigger the Supreme Court review, committees needed to submit 76,632 signatures, or about 10% of the 766,200. Also, they needed to meet thresholds in at least a quarter of the state's congressional districts.
The Senate bill would make a series of changes in the process, including increasing the signature threshold for triggering Supreme Court review. It would require increasing the 10% statewide threshold to 33%. Also, it would require meeting thresholds in half of the congressional districts, rather than a quarter.
Those changes would have the effect of increasing costs for backers of ballot initiatives.
Other issues in the bill include allowing county supervisors of elections to charge more to verify petition signatures and calling for each ballot measure to have a statement about the potential impact on the state budget.
A House version of the bill (HB 7037) also has drawn controversy and is ready to be considered by the full House.
Part of the controversy about the bills stems from a law that passed last year and placed additional regulations on paid petition gatherers, including requiring them to register with the Department of State and receive petition forms from the agency.
In addition, the House and Senate are considering placing a measure on the November ballot that would increase petition-signature requirements for initiatives. The Rules Committee on Wednesday was scheduled to take up the Senate version of that proposal (SJR 7062) but postponed it.
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 AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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