Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General
703 So. 2d 446, 1997 WL 719476 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proposed constitutional amendment violates the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution if it substantially alters or affects separate functions of multiple branches of government. Mandating a fixed percentage of the state's entire general appropriations for one purpose fails this test, as it restricts the core functions of both the legislative and executive branches.
Facts:
- A citizen initiative proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution to define "adequate provision for funding public education."
- The proposal would require that at least 40% of the state's total appropriations under Article III be allocated to public education each fiscal year.
- The proposed calculation explicitly excluded funds from the Florida lottery and the federal government.
- The 40% minimum was based on the percentage of the budget appropriated for education in the 1986-87 fiscal year, prior to the lottery's existence.
- The amendment included a provision allowing the legislature to suspend the requirement for a single fiscal year by a two-thirds vote of each house in a separate bill.
- The ballot title for the proposed amendment was "Requirement for Adequate Public Education Funding."
Procedural Posture:
- Pursuant to the Florida Constitution, the Florida Attorney General petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for an advisory opinion on the validity of a citizen initiative petition.
- The Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, accepted jurisdiction to review the proposed amendment's compliance with the constitutional single-subject requirement.
- The Court permitted interested parties to file briefs and heard oral arguments from both proponents and opponents of the initiative.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed constitutional amendment that mandates a minimum of 40% of the state's total appropriations be allocated to public education violate the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a proposed constitutional amendment that mandates a minimum of 40% of the state's total appropriations be allocated to public education violates the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. The proposal affects more than one subject because it substantially alters the functions of multiple branches of government. It restricts the legislature's discretion in making appropriations for all other government services by arbitrarily capping them at the remaining 60%. Furthermore, it impairs the executive branch's function by limiting the Governor's line-item veto power over education appropriations and the Governor and Cabinet's authority to make budget reductions during revenue shortfalls. Unlike prior approved amendments that allocated specific new taxes or fees, this proposal attempts to reallocate the entire general budget, thereby touching on every function of state government and violating the principle that an initiative must embrace only one subject.
Dissenting - Anstead, J.
No, the proposed constitutional amendment does not violate the single-subject requirement. The proposal's single subject is to provide an express definition for the term "adequate provision" for education funding, a mandate already present in the constitution which the Court has previously struggled to interpret. The majority improperly focuses on the limitless 'effects' or fiscal consequences of the amendment, rather than its singular subject matter. While the amendment would have a radical effect on state funding, that policy concern is beyond the Court's limited role in a single-subject analysis. The focus should be on the subject of the amendment itself, which is singularly aimed at defining a constitutional term.
Analysis:
This advisory opinion significantly clarifies the application of Florida's single-subject rule to citizen initiatives involving state finances. The decision establishes a critical distinction between initiatives that dedicate revenue from a specific new source (permissible) and those that mandate a percentage of the entire general budget (impermissible). By striking down the latter, the Court protects the legislature's core appropriation powers and the executive's veto authority from being fundamentally altered by a single-issue initiative. This ruling makes it substantially more difficult for future initiatives to engage in large-scale budgetary reallocation, reinforcing the judiciary's role as a gatekeeper against proposals that implicitly logroll multiple subjects under one broad theme.
