## Facts

- The Attorney General sought an advisory opinion on a proposed citizen initiative amending the Florida Constitution.
- The initiative would amend article I, section 10 by re-labeling existing contract-clause language as subsection (a) and adding a new subsection (b).
- Proposed subsection (b) would bar the state and all local governmental entities from adopting any law regarding discrimination that creates or recognizes any right, privilege, or protection based on any characteristic other than an enumerated list (including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, ethnic background, marital status, and familial status).
- The initiative also supplied definitions for terms such as “sex,” “marital status,” and “familial status,” narrowing the scope of those categories.
- The practical effect would be to prevent governmental expansion of anti-discrimination protections to traits not listed (including, as argued by opponents, sexual orientation) and to preclude or invalidate existing or future local ordinances extending such protections.
- The court’s review was limited to (1) the single-subject requirement for initiatives and (2) statutory requirements that the ballot title and summary clearly state the measure’s chief purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed amendment violated the Florida Constitution’s single-subject requirement for citizen initiatives.
2. Whether the ballot title and summary complied with the statutory requirement to clearly and fairly inform voters of the amendment’s chief purpose and legal effect.

## Decision

- The court concluded the proposed amendment violated the single-subject requirement and therefore could not be placed on the ballot.
- The court also concluded the ballot summary was misleading and insufficient because it failed to fairly inform voters of the amendment’s chief purpose and full legal effect.

## Legal Principles

- A citizen initiative must embrace only one subject and matters directly connected to that subject; the rule guards against logrolling and against combining multiple substantial constitutional changes in a single proposal.
- An initiative may violate the single-subject rule where it substantially affects multiple levels of government, restructures governmental authority, or produces broad effects across multiple areas of law beyond a single, unified purpose.
- The ballot title and summary must clearly and unambiguously state the measure’s chief purpose so that an average voter is not misled in the voting booth.
- A ballot summary is invalid if it omits or obscures material legal effects, including that the measure would bar future governmental action or negate existing protections.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court advised that the initiative could not appear on the ballot because it combined multiple substantial changes—restricting state and local authority over anti-discrimination protections and affecting diverse legal contexts—in violation of the single-subject requirement, and because its ballot summary did not clearly disclose the measure’s principal effect of foreclosing protections for unlisted characteristics and limiting local ordinances.


In re Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen.—Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1994)