Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Florida Ballot
Florida Ballot
____________
No. SC2023-0682
____________
April 1, 2024
GROSSHANS, J.
-2-
personal use shall not be subject to criminal or civil
liability or sanctions under Florida law.
(c) LIMITATIONS.
-3-
(2) Nothing in this amendment prohibits the Legislature
from enacting laws that are consistent with this
amendment.
summary states:
-4-
federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal
use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms.
Provides effective date.
statutory clarity rules. One opponent also argues that the proposed
another raises Supremacy Clause concerns. See art. VI, cl. 2, U.S.
II
Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary satisfy
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for
State Legislature, Governor, & Cabinet (All Voters Vote), 291 So. 3d
901, 904 (Fla. 2020). In carrying out this limited inquiry, we reject
-5-
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar
(Recreational Marijuana II), 320 So. 3d 657, 667 (Fla. 2021) (quoting
People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 891
-6-
precipitous changes in our state constitution.” Fine v. Firestone,
have a natural and logical connection. See All Voters Vote, 291 So.
123 So. 3d 47, 50-51 (Fla. 2013). 3 This ensures that the initiative
Op. to Att’y Gen.—Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (Fla.
1994). And this makes sense, since the initiative process lacks the
-7-
legislative filtering, public hearing, and policy debate that are
requirement.
-8-
use, established the distribution of marijuana through qualified
See id. at 477. We held that those provisions satisfied the “directly
more direct. 4
Constitution.
-9-
B
that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an
whether the ballot title and summary . . . fairly inform the voter of
the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2) whether the language
- 10 -
Weapons (Assault Weapons), 296 So. 3d 376, 381 (Fla. 2020)
enter the market, when in fact the Legislature must first authorize
them to do so.
the English Language 48 (5th ed. 2011). The most natural reading
- 11 -
enter the market, subject to a state-licensing process. Licensing is
summary does not imply that these entities already exist, but
- 12 -
ballot summary inaccurately signals to the voters that the
personal use. However, the summary does not suggest that other
That is, once other entities are properly licensed, they can
example, the summary is not misleading for failure to warn that the
amendment only covers Florida law and not federal law. Rather, it
- 13 -
Marijuana (Recreational Marijuana I), 315 So. 3d 1176, 1181-82
does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law.” 6 Nor does
under state law. And the amendment does exactly that: in the
- 14 -
definitions section, the amendment describes “personal use” and
notes that “personal use” of marijuana “shall not exceed 3.0 ounces
the Legislature from enacting laws that are consistent with this
regulations.
word limit, often cannot) explain ‘at great and undue length’ the
- 15 -
upon voters to educate themselves about the substance of the
for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 498 (Fla. 2002)).
- 16 -
we reject the opponent’s argument. In order for a facial challenge to
Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008). We decline to make that broad
sections of this amendment and federal law is a task far afield from
22 (1960))).
III
It is so ordered.
- 17 -
CANADY, LABARGA, and COURIEL, JJ., concur.
MUÑIZ, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which CANADY, J.,
concurs.
GROSSHANS, J., concurs with an opinion.
FRANCIS, J., dissents with an opinion.
SASSO, J., dissents with an opinion.
That law has long required the Attorney General to seek an advisory
- 18 -
this Court to take up potentially complicated, wide-ranging
proceeding?
Cf. Ray v. Mortham, 742 So. 2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 1999) (“[W]hen our
briefing from the parties will help the Court get it right.
- 19 -
GROSSHANS, J., concurring.
I write separately from the majority opinion to address an
from it. Though I have some misgivings about the phrasing of one
the Constitution of the United States 157-58 (1833)); see also Israel
- 20 -
v. DeSantis, 269 So. 3d 491, 496 (Fla. 2019) (“[U]nless the text of a
184 (Fla. 2023) (dictionaries are often the best evidence of ordinary
written).
- 21 -
relationship”; “natural, straightforward.” Direct, Webster’s Seventh
New Collegiate Dictionary 235 (1971 ed.); see also Direct, American
Dictionary of the English Language 282 (1969 ed.); see also Connect,
have a relationship”).
- 22 -
Not relying on definitions like the ones outlined above, our
text of the constitution. 9 I agree with the opponent that this term is
- 23 -
consistently asked if the elements of an amendment “may be
Legislature, Governor, & Cabinet (All Voters Vote), 291 So. 3d 901,
905 (Fla. 2020). This focus does not appear to conflict with the
especially when broad terms still exist under her formulation of the
- 24 -
Additionally, we have viewed the single-subject provision’s
212-13 (Fla. 2007); All Voters Vote, 291 So. 3d at 905. This, in my
view, is compatible with the definitions noted above and with our
requirement.
- 25 -
FRANCIS, J., dissenting.
dissent (or the majority) because I believe the ballot initiative also
- 26 -
One, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1575 (1961, rev.
But, in context, article XI, section 3’s use of the word “directly”
- 27 -
Defining “directly” this way, to me, makes the most sense in
(Grosshans, J.). But the fuller text of article XI, section 3 provides
connected therewith.”
- 28 -
given that the proposed amendment must “embrace but one
“embrace but one [‘a single unit or entire being or thing and no more
- 29 -
nature or involving a particular and often specified thing or relation’]
linked’] therewith.”
one topic (one item is in the figurative basket), and other matters
- 30 -
we both guard electoral integrity, and shift power back to the voters
This Court could rely solely on the text to recede from this
broad reading based on clear error under Poole. See 297 So. 3d at
13. See Ltd. Pol. Terms in Certain Elective Offs., 592 So. 2d at
231 (Kogan, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
- 31 -
507. But a review of the history behind this Court’s broad “oneness
reasoned that the new limiting condition, that any such proposal
14. Indeed, the text of the 1972 version clearly expanded the
1968 version of article XI, section 3 by providing for both the
revision or amendment of “any portion or portions” of the Florida
constitution, whereas the 1968 version limited such proposals to
amendments of a single section. See Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d
824 (Fla. 1970) (removing a ballot proposal to revise the bicameral
legislature and create a unicameral legislature because the 1968
version of article XI, section 3 restricted citizen initiative petitions to
amend a single portion of the constitution, whereas the petition
proposed revising multiple constitutional provisions).
- 32 -
823 (England, J., concurring) (emphasis added). But he candidly
noted that the Court had not been advised “what functional
clues and the similar “but one subject” language applicable to the
also art. III, § 6, Fla. Const. Of course, Justice England did not
language.
intended to expand the citizen initiative process. Id. And citing the
- 33 -
Weber concurrence, Floridians determined that the single-subject
meaning that the subject and connected matters need only have
constitutional text, their use has also rendered the actual words—
employed this clear error would revive the full text and restore the
restraint. 16
- 34 -
As it relates to this case, personal use and commercialization
of marijuana aren’t even two sides of the same coin. If the matters
regulatory schemes.
- 35 -
use. And it adds a new right for certain entities to sell,
- 36 -
Of course, it depends on how broadly you define a topic. But
Government”? These questions are the iceberg below the tip of our
ago.21
- 37 -
Here, the most concerning forms of abuse of process are not
states that the ballot proposal is about the “personal use” of adult
- 38 -
document is really in the hands of a few interested groups that may
not have the interests of all Floridians in mind. But they can, at
places, the Sponsor chose to use the word “allows” to describe the
respectfully dissent.
- 39 -
& Other Restrictions, 320 So. 3d 657, 667 (Fla. 2021); see also
Court has therefore derived from the statute’s text two requirements
summary must not mislead the public and 2) the ballot summary
must fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment.
See Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142, 147 (Fla. 2008)
Embryo, 959 So. 2d 210, 213-14 (Fla. 2007)). Failure to meet either
256 So. 3d 803, 808 (Fla. 2018) (“A proposed amendment must be
removed from the ballot when the summary does not accurately
that the ballot summary may not mislead voters. This requirement
- 40 -
content of the proposed amendment” so that they “will not be
Sugar Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 1996)). In fulfilling this
So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1997). But when the sponsor chooses to
accurate”).
first, and most egregious, is the Sponsor’s decision to claim that the
- 41 -
allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other
state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process,
manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and
accessories.
(Emphasis added.)
the summary uses the word “allows” twice before the phrase “other
Black’s Law Dictionary 95-96 (11th ed. 2019). In other words, the
- 42 -
itself does the work—that the amendment itself would generate
“[t]o permit the presence of” or “[t]o let do or happen; permit”). And
law, for example, the ballot summary states the initiative “does not
the amendment itself does not “allow” “other state licensed entities”
entities first.
provide for the licensure of entities that are not [MMTCs] to” sell
- 43 -
marijuana products. (Emphasis added.) As a proponent concedes,
“if the Legislature does nothing, MMTCs will remain the only
the amendment also “allows” “other” entity sales. See Advisory Op.
Inv.-Owned Utils., 287 So. 3d 1256, 1260-61 (Fla. 2020) (noting that
the question was not whether a person had the right to sell
- 44 -
high prices when they do find the products they need, and lack of
“other state licensed entities” and there may never be “other state
initiative misleads voters with its opening stanza when it says that
- 45 -
marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical
constitute a federal crime. See art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. Const.; cf. United
- 46 -
penalty. That will not be the case even if the amendment passes.
See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Adult Use of Marijuana, 315 So. 3d
for Petitioner
- 47 -
Joshua Katz and Anastasia Boden of Cato Institute, Washington,
District of Columbia; and Spencer George of the Law Office of
Spencer George, Chuluota, Florida,
- 48 -