Florida supreme court strikes down ballot questions on vouchers, taxes
In two unanimous decisions, the Florida Supreme Court has issued orders barring the state from placing three politically contentious constitutional amendments on the November ballot, the Ledger in Lakeland reports. In the case of Amendment 5, which involved a complicated plan to cut property taxes by 25% that was linked to an uncertain promise to increase sales taxes, the justices made clear that they were deeply troubled by the ballot’s language. They said the ballot summary was misleading because it did not indicate the promise to replace the lost revenue only applied to the first year. Justice Fred Lewis said he has been disturbed by what he called “game playing” on the ballot language for the numerous amendments. “Why not require that anyone who wants to change the constitution, that it not be misleading, that it not engage in all of these catchy phrases and political jargon, if you will, so that the people of Florida will know what they're voting on?” he asked. The amendment had been crafted by the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC), a special panel that meets every 20 years and has the ability to place amendments directly on the ballot. The decision was a victory for a powerful coalition of businesses, education advocates and other interest groups that argued the tax measure could lead to economic uncertainty and higher sales taxes.
In striking the other school-related proposals, Amendment 7, which would have allowed publicly funded school vouchers, and Amendment 9, which would have required school districts to spend a minimum of 65% of their money on classroom activities, the court appeared troubled over the TBRC's expanding its agenda beyond taxation and budget issues. Justice Harry Lee Anstead said the justices were concerned that if all a TBRC proposal had to do “is impact the budget, and not just the process, that they could do anything. They could say, well we should have 100,000 new police officers on the street because that's going to impact the budget.” Attorney Stephen Grimes defended the proposals by arguing the court should not narrowly restrict the TBRC's ability to offer proposals to the voters. The ruling drew a rare criticism from former Gov. Jeb Bush, who enacted a school voucher program only to see it rejected by the court in 2006. The new amendment was designed to eliminate those constitutional barriers. Bush called the decision "heartbreaking" and said it could threaten other publicly funded scholarship programs, including those for students with disabilities and poor students who benefit from corporate scholarships. But House Democratic leader Dan Gelber called the decision “a victory for public education,” saying the TBRC had “wandered far afield of its tax-reform mission by advancing the voucher amendments.”
Source: Lakeland Ledger, 9/3/08, By Lloyd Dunkelberger
[Editor’s Note: The Florida Supreme Court’s orders, below, were issued within hours of the oral arguments in both cases. The court acted swiftly because of time constraints involved in placing the initiatives on the November ballot. As a result, the court did not have time to issue full opinions, which it indicated would follow later. NSBA applauds the rulings at the next link. Information on the lower court rulings in both cases is available starting at the fourth link. The last link is to the Legal Clips summary of the 2006 decision striking down the voucher program.]
Florida Dep’t of State v. Slough order (Amendment 5)
Ford v. Browning order (Amendments 7 & 9)
NSBA statement on rulings
NSBA School Law pages on ballot initiative rulings
NSBA School Law pages on Bush v. Holmes