Ford v. Browning
2008 WL 4191154, 992 So. 2d 132 (2008)
Rule of Law:
The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission's constitutional authority to propose amendments directly to voters is limited to proposals dealing with "taxation" or "the state budgetary process," which refers to the structural and procedural aspects of developing the state budget, not merely any matter involving state expenditures.
Facts:
- The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC), a body created by the Florida Constitution, formally proposed two specific constitutional amendments, Proposed Amendment 7 and Proposed Amendment 9.
- Proposed Amendment 7 aimed to amend the freedom of religion provision in Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution by eliminating the restriction on state funds being used to aid any religion and adding a provision allowing individuals or entities to participate in public programs based on religion.
- Proposed Amendment 9 aimed to amend the public education provision in Article IX, Section 1, by directing school districts to spend at least sixty-five percent of their funding on classroom instruction.
- Proposed Amendment 9 also included a provision that the state's duty to provide for public education is not exclusively limited to free public schools, which would reverse existing legal precedent regarding public funding of private programs.
- The TBRC intended for these proposed amendments to be placed on the November 2008 general election ballot for a public vote.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (Andy Ford et al.) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County (trial court) challenging two proposed constitutional amendments (7 and 9) submitted by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC).
- Appellants alleged that the TBRC lacked the authority to propose the amendments and that the accompanying ballot title and summary language were misleading, seeking an injunction to prevent their placement on the ballot.
- Appellants' motion for a temporary injunction was treated as a motion for final summary judgment by the circuit court.
- The circuit court denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment and granted cross-motions filed by the appellees (Kurt Browning, Secretary of State) and intervenors, finding that the TBRC had the authority to propose the amendments and that the challenged ballot language was not misleading.
- Appellants appealed the circuit court's judgment to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court, stating it presented a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution due to the upcoming election.
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 Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) have the constitutional authority under Article XI, Section 6(e) of the Florida Constitution to propose constitutional amendments that amend the freedom of religion provision (Proposed Amendment 7) and the public education provision (Proposed Amendment 9), where such proposals do not deal with "taxation or the state budgetary process" as defined by the court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wells
No, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) exceeded its constitutional authority in proposing Proposed Amendments 7 and 9 because these amendments do not deal with "taxation or the state budgetary process" as constitutionally defined. The court applies principles of constitutional interpretation, starting with the explicit language. Article XI, Section 6(e) of the Florida Constitution limits TBRC's authority to propose constitutional revisions to those "dealing with taxation or the state budgetary process." While Section 6(d) directs TBRC to review various matters, Section 6(e) defines TBRC's action authority, explicitly distinguishing between statutory changes (which could include budgetary expenditures) and constitutional amendments (limited to "taxation or the state budgetary process"). The phrase "state budgetary process" is construed to mean "the process by which the state budget is developed," referring to "the structural and procedural aspects of developing and implementing the state budget." It does not encompass any matter that merely involves state expenditures or revenue; accepting such a broad definition would render the words "process" and "taxation" superfluous. This interpretation aligns with TBRC's own rules and other constitutional and statutory uses of "budgetary process," which focus on procedural and structural aspects. As a constitutional body, TBRC possesses only those powers specifically designated to it. Proposed Amendment 7, concerning religious freedom and aid, does not address taxation or the state budgetary process. Similarly, Proposed Amendment 9, concerning specific educational expenditures and the scope of public education, involves specific expenditures rather than the procedural budgetary process. Therefore, TBRC exceeded its constitutional authority in proposing both amendments.
Concurring - Justice Lewis
While fully concurring with the majority that TBRC lacked the authority to propose Amendments 7 and 9, Justice Lewis writes separately to emphasize that Proposed Amendment 9 would have been removed from the 2008 November general election ballot due to its misleading title, even if TBRC had the authority. Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, requires ballot language to be in "clear and unambiguous language." The ballot title for Amendment 9, "REQUIRING 65 PERCENT OF SCHOOL FUNDING FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; STATE'S DUTY FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION," is misleading because it highlights one effect (classroom funding) but completely fails to mention another highly significant effect: the elimination of existing Florida law that deemed statutory voucher programs unconstitutional (referencing Bush v. Holmes). Although the ballot summary mentioned this latter effect, a limited, restrictive title that omits a major impact constitutes "hiding the ball" and misinforms voters. Florida law demands straightforward and direct language, not "creative wordsmithing," to ensure voters are fairly apprised of a proposed amendment's full scope.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission's power to propose constitutional amendments directly to Florida voters. By narrowly defining "the state budgetary process" to its procedural and structural aspects, the Florida Supreme Court reinforced that constitutional bodies are limited to explicitly granted powers, preventing them from bypassing legislative or other amendment processes for substantive policy changes merely because they involve funds. This decision ensures greater scrutiny over constitutional amendment proposals initiated by commissions, emphasizing adherence to specific constitutional grants of power and potentially requiring more direct legislative or citizen initiative for broad policy changes that impact expenditures but not the budget-making process itself.
