Kenneth J. Detzner, etc. v. Harry Lee Anstead
256 So. 3d 820 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Proposed constitutional amendments originating from the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) are not bound by the single-subject rule that applies to citizen-led initiatives, and thus may bundle multiple, unrelated proposals into a single ballot question.
Facts:
- The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) proposed several amendments to the Florida Constitution for the November 2018 general election.
- Three of these proposals, designated as Amendments 7, 9, and 11, each combined multiple, distinct, and unrelated subjects into a single ballot question.
- Amendment 7 bundled provisions for first responder death benefits, supermajority requirements for university fee increases, and the governance structure of the state college system.
- Amendment 9 bundled a prohibition on offshore oil and gas drilling with a prohibition on the use of vaping devices in enclosed indoor workplaces.
- Florida's Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, was statutorily required to place these CRC-proposed amendments on the general election ballot.
- Harry Lee Anstead and Robert J. Barnas objected to this bundling, arguing it constituted 'logrolling' that unfairly forced voters to approve a proposal they disfavored in order to pass one they supported.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Lee Anstead and Robert J. Barnas filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto against Secretary of State Ken Detzner in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit (a state trial court).
- The circuit court granted the petition and ordered that Amendments 7, 9, and 11 be stricken from the November 2018 general election ballot.
- Secretary of State Detzner, as appellant, sought review of the circuit court's judgment.
- The First District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) certified the trial court's order directly to the Florida Supreme Court, identifying it as a question of great public importance requiring 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 Florida Constitution Revision Commission violate state statutes or the First Amendment by bundling multiple, unrelated subjects into a single proposed constitutional amendment for voter approval?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The bundling of multiple, unrelated subjects into a single constitutional amendment by the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) does not violate Florida law. Unlike citizen initiatives, amendments proposed by the CRC are not bound by a single-subject rule. The Florida Constitution grants the CRC broad authority to revise the entire constitution or any part of it, which necessarily includes the lesser power to amend several parts in one proposal. The statutory requirement for a 'yes' or 'no' vote is satisfied because voters approve or reject the entire bundled amendment as a whole package. Furthermore, the claim that bundling violates a voter's First Amendment right to cast a meaningful vote on each independent proposal is a novel theory with no support in existing law.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
No. While concurring in the result because the petition for a writ of quo warranto was the improper legal vehicle for the challenge, this practice of bundling unrelated proposals is a dangerous form of 'logrolling' that harms the democratic process. The majority's reliance on the CRC's internal process as an adequate safeguard against logrolling is misplaced, as the bundling occurred after public hearings and without specific legal guidance. This practice forces voters to weigh the costs and benefits of disparate proposals, making it significantly more difficult for citizens to intelligently exercise their right to amend the constitution and potentially forcing them to reject popular ideas to avoid unpopular ones.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the unique and expansive power of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, distinguishing it from other methods of constitutional amendment. By explicitly exempting CRC proposals from the single-subject rule, the court allows the CRC to engage in 'logrolling,' a practice forbidden in citizen initiatives. This ruling gives the CRC significant strategic latitude in packaging proposals, potentially combining popular and unpopular items to ensure passage. The decision also underscores a high procedural bar for challenging ballot measures, confirming that a writ of quo warranto is improper for challenging the substantive merit of an official's authorized actions.
Unlock the full brief for Kenneth J. Detzner, etc. v. Harry Lee Anstead