Armstrong v. Harris
2000 WL 1260014, 773 So. 2d 7 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment must be accurate, clear, and unambiguous. The summary violates this requirement if it fails to disclose the amendment's chief purpose and main legal effect, particularly the curtailment or nullification of an existing constitutional right, and such a defect is substantial enough to warrant post-election invalidation.
Facts:
- The Florida Legislature passed a joint resolution proposing an amendment to Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution concerning excessive punishments.
- The proposed amendment sought to change the state's constitutional prohibition from "cruel or unusual punishment" to "cruel and unusual punishment."
- The proposal also required that the state's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment be interpreted in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.
- The legislature prepared a ballot title: "PRESERVATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT."
- The 75-word ballot summary stated the amendment preserved the death penalty and conformed the state's cruel punishment clause to federal interpretation, but did not state that the language would change from "or" to "and."
- The ballot summary did not explicitly inform voters that the amendment's main effect would be to nullify the independent force of Florida's own constitutional protection against cruel or unusual punishments, which had existed since 1838.
- The proposed amendment was placed on the November 3, 1998, general election ballot as Amendment No. 2.
- Voters approved the amendment at the general election.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Armstrong and others filed a pre-election petition for a writ of mandamus directly in the Florida Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the proposed amendment.
- The Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, directing the petitioners to file an action in the circuit court.
- Armstrong filed a complaint in the circuit court (trial court) seeking mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
- The circuit court dismissed the mandamus claim, denied the injunction, and withheld ruling on the declaratory relief claim.
- Armstrong appealed, and the district court of appeal certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which ultimately dismissed the appeal on technical grounds the day before the election.
- Following voter approval of the amendment, Armstrong filed an amended petition in the circuit court.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of State, upholding the amendment.
- Armstrong, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the district court of appeal, which then certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court for immediate resolution.
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 the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment violate the accuracy requirement of Article XI, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution if it fails to inform voters of the amendment's chief purpose and main legal effect, such as nullifying an independent state constitutional right?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, J.
Yes, the ballot title and summary violate the Florida Constitution's accuracy requirement. A ballot summary must not mislead voters or fail to disclose the amendment's chief purpose and true effect. The accuracy requirement, implicit in Article XI, Section 5, functions as a 'truth in packaging' law for the ballot and applies to all constitutional amendments, including those proposed by the Legislature. This ballot was defective for two reasons: it 'flew under false colors' by implying it would promote citizens' rights through conformity with U.S. Supreme Court rulings when it actually eliminated an independent state right, reducing protection to the federal floor. Second, it 'hid the ball' by failing to state its undisputed main effect—the nullification of Florida’s longstanding, independent Cruel or Unusual Punishment Clause. Because the defect was not a minor technicality but went to the very heart of the amendment, the subsequent approval by voters cannot cure it, as the electorate was not adequately informed of what they were voting on.
Concurring - Harding, J.
Agrees that the amendment must be stricken. The accuracy requirement is implicit in the Constitution and codified in statute (§ 101.161), applying to all constitutional amendments regardless of origin. The proper remedy for a misleading ballot summary is judicial review to strike the proposal, not simply voting legislators out of office, because the latter does not remove the unconstitutionally passed amendment from the Constitution.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
Agrees with the majority on the merits of the accuracy requirement. Although striking an amendment post-election is disconcerting, the Court's own pre-election order declining jurisdiction without prejudice permitted this post-election challenge. The procedural history highlights the urgent need for the Legislature or the Court to establish clear and timely procedures for challenging legislatively proposed amendments to avoid future post-election invalidations.
Dissenting - Wells, C.J.
No, the ballot title and summary do not violate the Constitution in a manner that grants the Court authority to invalidate the amendment. The majority improperly creates a judicial power to strike a legislatively proposed, voter-approved amendment based on a subjective conclusion that the summary was misleading. The Court's power of review over legislatively proposed amendments is limited to ensuring compliance with constitutional procedures, not statutory requirements or subjective assessments of clarity. The proper remedy for voters who feel misled by the Legislature is at the ballot box. Furthermore, the summary was not 'clearly and conclusively' misleading, as it sufficiently informed voters that the state provision would conform to federal interpretations, similar to a prior amendment the Court upheld in Grose v. Firestone.
Dissenting - Lewis, J.
Agrees that courts can review ballot language but disagrees with the majority's conclusion due to the challengers' delay. The doctrine of laches should bar this post-election challenge because the challengers failed to act in a timely manner that would have allowed for judicial resolution before the election. When balancing the alleged ballot defect against the integrity of the democratic process post-election, the court should uphold the result unless the defect was so significant as to prevent a legitimate expression of the people's will, which was not the case here.
Dissenting - Quince, J.
No, the ballot language was not misleading. The ballot title and summary adequately informed the public that the state constitutional provision would be construed in conformity with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, similar to the search-and-seizure amendment upheld in Grose. Therefore, the circuit court's decision should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the Florida Supreme Court's authority to conduct substantive judicial review of legislatively proposed constitutional amendments and to invalidate them even after voter approval if the ballot language is materially misleading. It elevates the 'truth in packaging' requirement, demanding that ballot summaries disclose an amendment's main effect, especially the reduction of existing rights. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in policing the constitutional amendment process against legislative overreach, but as the dissents argue, it also creates tension with the principles of popular sovereignty and electoral finality by allowing for post-election invalidation based on a judicial assessment of voter understanding.
