Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Limiting Government Interference with Abortion

Supreme Court of Florida
____________

No. SC2023-1392
____________

ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE:
LIMITING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH ABORTION.

April 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for

an advisory opinion concerning the validity of a proposed citizen

initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution, circulated under

article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and titled

“Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion.” We

have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.

We approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2023, the Attorney General petitioned this

Court for an opinion regarding the validity of this initiative petition

sponsored by Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. (the Sponsor). We

invited interested parties to file briefs regarding the validity of the
initiative petition. We received initial briefs from the Attorney

General and four other opponents of the proposed amendment:

Susan B. Anthony Pro Life America (“Susan B. Anthony”); the

National Center for Life and Liberty (“Center for Life”); Florida

Voters Against Extremism; and the Florida Conference of Catholic

Bishops. We received answer briefs arguing in favor of placing the

proposed amendment on the ballot from the Sponsor and four other

proponents: certain Former Florida Republican Elected Officials

(“Former Republican Officials”); the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists; certain Florida Doctors; and

certain Law Professors and Instructors. Oral argument was heard

on February 7, 2024.

The full text of the proposed amendment, which would create

a new section in the Declaration of Rights in article I of the Florida

Constitution, states:

SECTION __. Limiting government interference with
abortion.—Except as provided in Article X, Section 22,
no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion
before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s
health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare
provider.

-2-
 The ballot title for the proposed amendment is “Amendment to

Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” and the ballot

summary states:

No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion
before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s
health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare
provider. This amendment does not change the
Legislature’s constitutional authority to require
notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has
an abortion.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing the validity of an initiative petition for placement

on the ballot, “[t]his Court has traditionally applied a deferential

standard of review.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana

for Certain Med. Conditions (Medical Marijuana I), 132 So. 3d 786,

794 (Fla. 2014). Without regard to the merits or wisdom of the

initiative, our review is limited to the following issues: (1) “the

compliance of the text of the proposed amendment or revision with

s. 3, Art. XI of the State Constitution”; (2) “the compliance of the

proposed ballot title and substance with s. 101.161”; and (3)

“whether the proposed amendment is facially invalid under the

United States Constitution.” § 16.061(1), Fla. Stat (2023). This

-3-
Court will invalidate a proposed amendment “only if it is shown to

be ‘clearly and conclusively defective.’ ” 1 Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.

re Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol to Establish

Age, Licensing, & Other Restrictions, 320 So. 3d 657, 667 (Fla. 2021)

(quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Amend. to Bar Gov’t from

Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ. (Treating

People Differently), 778 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000)). This Court’s

review of a proposal’s compliance with article X, section 3 and

section 101.161 is governed by the following principles:

First, the Court will not address the merits or wisdom of
the proposed amendment. Second, “[t]he Court must act
with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it
removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the
people.” Specifically, where citizen initiatives are
concerned, “[the] Court has no authority to inject itself in

1. In her briefing, the Attorney General invites this Court to
reconsider its long-held requirement that to invalidate a ballot
initiative, this Court must conclude that the initiative is clearly and
conclusively defective. The Attorney General suggests that this
Court need only consider whether the initiative violates the
requirements of section 101.161(1), not whether it does so “clearly.”
Essentially, the Attorney General seeks to reduce the opponents’
burden here, see Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let’s Help
Florida, 363 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 1978) (stating that the burden
upon the opponent of an initiative proposal is to establish that the
proposal is “clearly and conclusively defective” (quoting Weber v.
Smathers, 338 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1976); Goldner v. Adams, 167 So. 2d
575 (Fla. 1964))), which we decline to do.

-4-
 the process, unless the laws governing the process have
been ‘clearly and conclusively’ violated.”

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 1.35% Prop. Tax Cap, Unless Voter

Approved, 2 So. 3d 968, 971 (Fla. 2009) (alterations in original)

(citations omitted).

With these principles in mind, we turn to the task at hand.

B. Single-subject Requirement

Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides in

pertinent part:

The power to propose the revision or amendment of
any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is
reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision
or amendment, except for those limiting the power of
government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one
subject and matter directly connected therewith.

(Emphasis added.) “[I]n determining whether a proposal addresses

a single subject the test is whether it ‘may be logically viewed as

having a natural relation and connection as component parts or

aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.’ ” Fine v. Firestone,

448 So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984) (quoting City of Coral Gables v.

Gray, 19 So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 1944)). In other words, a proposal

must manifest “a logical and natural oneness of purpose” to

-5-
accomplish the purpose of article XI, section 3.2 Advisory Op. to

Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot. Amend. (Marriage Protection), 926

So. 2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Fine, 448 So. 2d at 990).

The single-subject requirement is intended to “prevent[] a proposal

‘from engaging in either of two practices: (a) logrolling; or (b)

substantially altering or performing the functions of multiple

branches of state government.’ ” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d

at 795 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land

Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla.

Conservation & Recreation Lands (Water & Land Conservation), 123

2. Opponent Susan B. Anthony urges this Court to reconsider
the “oneness of purpose” standard, asserting that it is too subjective
and that the plain text of article XI, section 3, requiring “one
subject,” should instead be read more narrowly as requiring “one
proposition.” While Susan B. Anthony suggests that a narrower
interpretation of the single-subject requirement would be more
faithful to the supremacy-of-text principle, its interpretation bears
little relationship to the actual constitutional text. There is a
difference between a proposal addressing a particular “subject,” and
one that presents a single “proposition,” and the constitutional text
plainly states that an initiative “embrace but one subject.” Further,
Susan B. Anthony ignores the text that immediately follows the
word “subject” in article XI, section 3, which plainly permits a
proposed amendment to address “matter directly connected” to the
single subject. Finally, our cases do not reflect a commitment to
defining “subject” in such a narrow manner. We thus decline
Susan B. Anthony’s invitation to adopt a narrower interpretation of
the single-subject requirement.

-6-
So. 3d 47, 50-51 (Fla. 2013)). It “is a rule of restraint designed to

insulate Florida’s organic law from precipitous and cataclysmic

change.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Save Our Everglades (Save Our

Everglades), 636 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (Fla. 1994). As explained

below, the proposed amendment here does not violate the single-

subject requirement.

This Court has defined logrolling as “a practice wherein several

separate issues are rolled into a single initiative in order to

aggregate votes or secure approval of an otherwise unpopular

issue.” Id. at 1339. “The purpose of the single-subject requirement

is to allow the citizens to vote on singular changes in our

government that are identified in the proposal and to avoid voters

having to accept part of a proposal which they oppose in order to

obtain a change which they support.” Fine, 448 So. 2d at 993.

Susan B. Anthony and Florida Voters Against Extremism

assert that the proposed amendment engages in logrolling by

reaching two separate categories of abortion—abortion before

viability of the fetus and abortion based on a healthcare provider’s

authority—which present distinct moral and policy issues. The

“viability provision” would ban any law prohibiting, penalizing,

-7-
delaying, or restricting abortion before viability, regardless of the

circumstances or the mother’s reasons for seeking an abortion.

This, according to these opponents, would be, in effect, a

constitutional guarantee of abortion at any time and for any

purpose before the fetus is viable. The “health provision” would bar

any law that prohibits, penalizes, delays, or restricts abortion at

any time—including after viability and until the moment of birth—

so long as a “healthcare provider” says it is necessary to “protect”

the mother’s “health”—not “life.” Opponents argue that these two

provisions of the proposed amendment involve entirely different

subjects. Susan B. Anthony points out that many voters would

simultaneously oppose an amendment that prohibits government

interference with all previability abortions but support an

amendment prohibiting government interference with abortions

sought to protect the health of the mother. Opponents argue that

the proposed amendment forces those voters “to accept part of a

proposal which they oppose,” id.—a ban on laws prohibiting

abortion before viability—“in order to obtain a change which they

support,” id.—a ban on laws prohibiting abortion when maternal

health is in need of protection. The Sponsor and other proponents

-8-
contend that the proposed amendment addresses a single subject,

namely, “limiting government interference with abortion.”

Under both Florida and federal law, the subject of abortion has

historically involved two major interconnected matters: the viability

of the fetus and the health of the mother. See generally Dobbs v.

Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 301 (2022); Roe v.

Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973), overruled by Dobbs, 597 U.S.

215, and holding modified by Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v.

Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla.

1989), receded from by Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla. v.

State, No. SC2022-1050 (Apr. 1, 2024) (slip op. at 2). “Abortion”—

or, more specifically, “limits on government interference with

abortion”—is the subject of the proposed amendment, and the

viability of the fetus and the mother’s health are “matter[s] directly

connected” thereto. For this reason, the argument that the

proposed amendment violates the single-subject requirement

because voters may support some of the amendment’s applications

but not others also fails. Whether some voters may support only a

portion of a proposed amendment and oppose another portion is

not the inquiry that determines whether there is a violation of the

-9-
single-subject requirement. Instead, the prohibition on “logrolling

refers to a practice whereby an amendment is proposed which

contains unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to

support, in order to get an otherwise disfavored provision passed.”

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Rts. of Elec. Consumers Regarding Solar

Energy Choice (Solar Energy Choice), 188 So. 3d 822, 828-29 (Fla.

2016) (emphasis added) (citing Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Protect

People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease, & Other Health

Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So. 2d 1186, 1191 (Fla. 2006)); see

also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Ltd. Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d

997, 999 (Fla. 1993) (“The purpose of the single-subject restriction

is to prevent the proposal of an amendment which contains two

unrelated provisions, one which electors might wish to support and

one which they might disfavor.” (emphasis added)). Because

viability and maternal health are interconnected matters related to

the subject of abortion, the mere fact that electors might not agree

with the entirety of the amendment does not render it violative of

the single-subject requirement.

The Former Republican Officials point out that this Court has

repeatedly approved ballot measures that addressed multiple

- 10 -
related facets of a subject. For example, in Marriage Protection, the

proposed amendment both defined “marriage” as “the legal union of

only one man and one woman” and prohibited “the substantial

equivalent thereof,” i.e., civil unions or domestic partnerships. 926

So. 2d at 1232. Although the opponents of the proposed

amendment in that case contended that the definition of “marriage”

and the prohibition on substantial equivalents were separate

subjects, this Court concluded that they were both facets of “the

singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights

and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to

the union of one man and one woman.” Id. at 1234.

Similarly, within the context of the proposed amendment here,

abortion “before viability” and “when necessary to protect the

patient’s health” are not separate subjects but facets of the singular

subject of whether government “interference with abortion” should

be “limit[ed]” when those circumstances are present. We have

explained that “a proposed amendment may ‘delineate a number of

guidelines’ consistent with the single-subject requirement as long

as these components possess ‘a natural relation and connection as

component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.’ ”

- 11 -
Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 796 (quoting Advisory Op. to

Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legis. Dist. Boundaries, 2

So. 3d 175, 181-82 (Fla. 2009)). Banning laws that restrict

previability abortion and abortion performed to protect maternal

health are aspects of a single scheme: limiting government

interference with abortion.

Susan B. Anthony’s reliance on In re Advisory Opinion to the

Attorney General—Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination

(Discrimination Laws), 632 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1994), in support of its

position is misplaced. The proposed amendment in that case

stated, in pertinent part,

The state, political subdivisions of the state,
municipalities or any other governmental entity shall not
enact or adopt any law regarding discrimination against
persons which creates, establishes or recognizes any
right, privilege or protection for any person based upon
any characteristic, trait, status, or condition other than
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap,
ethnic background, marital status, or familial status.

Id. at 1020. This Court concluded that the proposed initiative

violated the single-subject rule because “it enumerate[d] ten

classifications of people that would be entitled to protection from

discrimination if the amendment were passed.” Id. (“[A] voter may

- 12 -
want to support protection from discrimination for people based on

race and religion, but oppose protection based on marital status

and familial status.”). Here, unlike what we characterized as the

“expansive generality” and “disparate” classifications present in

Discrimination Laws, the proposed amendment concerns only a

single item—abortion.

Susan B. Anthony also relies on Advisory Opinion to the

Attorney General re Fairness Initiative Requiring Legislative

Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions and Exclusions Serve a

Public Purpose (Fairness Initiative), 880 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2004). In

that case, we concluded that the proposed amendment

contain[ed] three disparate subjects: (1) a scheme for the
Legislature to review existing exemptions to the sales tax
under chapter 212; (2) the creation of a sales tax on
services that currently does not exist; and (3) limitations
on the Legislature’s ability to create or continue
exemptions and exclusions from the sales tax.

Id. at 634. This Court reasoned that

[w]hile all of these three goals arguably relate to sales
taxes, and any one of these three goals might be the
permissible subject of a constitutional amendment under
the initiative process, we conclude that together they
constitute impermissible logrolling and violate the single-
subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida
Constitution because of the substantial, yet disparate,
impact they may have.

- 13 -
Id. at 635. The elements of the proposed amendment in Fairness

Initiative lacked the “natural relation and connection” present in the

proposed amendment in this case. The singular goal of the

proposed amendment here is to limit government interference with

the termination of pregnancy. It involves one subject and addresses

the related ability of State and local governments to “interfere[]

with” that subject.

The proposed amendment also will not substantially alter or

perform the functions of multiple branches of government. “This

Court has held that while most amendments will ‘affect’ multiple

branches of government this fact alone is insufficient to invalidate

an amendment on single-subject grounds . . . .” Advisory Op. to

Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab., 818 So. 2d 491, 496 (Fla.

2002). Indeed “it [is] difficult to conceive of a constitutional

amendment that would not affect other aspects of government to

some extent.” Solar Energy Choice, 188 So. 3d at 830 (alteration in

original) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Ltd. Casinos, 644 So.

2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1994)). But it is only “when a proposal substantially

alters or performs the functions of multiple branches that it violates

the single-subject test.’ ” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 795

- 14 -
(emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fish &

Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla.

1998)); see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State

Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live

Hum. Embryo (Prohibiting State Spending), 959 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla.

2007) (“While we recognize that the proposed amendment, if

enacted, appears to limit the authority of the legislative and

executive branches of state government, we conclude that this

proposed amendment does not substantially alter or perform the

functions of multiple branches of government.”).

Here, the proposed amendment will affect the government

“only in the general sense that any constitutional provision does” by

requiring compliance with a new constitutional rule. Solar Energy

Choice, 188 So. 3d at 830. It will not require any of the branches of

government to perform any specific functions nor would it

substantially alter their functions. Instead, it primarily restricts the

authority of the legislative branch to pass legislation that would

“interfere” with abortion under certain circumstances. This is not

the type of “precipitous” or “cataclysmic” change to the government

structure indicative of substantially altering or performing the

- 15 -
functions of multiple branches of government that the single-

subject rule is intended to prevent. See, e.g., In re Advisory Op. to

Att’y Gen. re Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Elec. Supply,

177 So. 3d 235, 244-45 (Fla. 2015) (concluding that although the

proposed amendment would limit the authority of the Legislature

and other governmental entities to regulate in certain areas, it did

“not substantially alter or perform the functions of multiple

branches of government producing ‘precipitous’ or ‘cataclysmic’

changes”).

We conclude that the proposed amendment before us

embraces but one subject—limiting government interference with

abortion—and matter directly connected therewith. It does not

violate the single-subject provision of article XI, section 3.

C. Ballot Title and Summary

Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2023), sets forth certain

technical and clarity requirements for ballot titles and summaries.

As to the technical requirements, the statute requires that the

ballot title “consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length,

by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of” and

that “[t]he ballot summary of the amendment or other public

- 16 -
measure shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words

in length, of the chief purpose of the measure.” § 101.161(1), Fla.

Stat. Here, the ballot title is composed of seven words and the

ballot summary is composed of thirty-four words, clearly meeting

the word count limitations provided in section 101.161(1).

Section 101.161(1) also requires that a ballot summary “be

printed in clear and unambiguous language.” “This is to provide

fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so that the

voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an

intelligent and informed ballot.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Fee on

Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 1996).

“Accordingly, in reviewing the ballot title and summary, this Court

asks two questions: (1) whether the ballot title and summary fairly

inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment; and (2)

whether the language of the ballot title and summary misleads the

public.” Solar Energy Choice, 188 So. 3d at 831. “[I]t is not

necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment,

only the chief purpose.” Water & Land Conservation, 123 So. 3d at

50-51 (alteration in original) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re

- 17 -
Additional Homestead Tax Exemption (Homestead Tax Exemption),

880 So. 2d 646, 651 (Fla. 2004)).

Opponents contend that the ballot title and summary fail to

fairly inform voters of the chief purpose of the amendment because,

they argue, the chief purpose is not to limit government interference

with abortion, as the title states, but to effectively provide for

abortion on demand, up until the moment of birth, by requiring

broad exceptions for maternal health. The opponents find it all but

impossible to imagine a circumstance in which a woman who wants

a postviability (including late-term or partial-birth) abortion will not

be able to find a “healthcare provider” willing to say that an

abortion is somehow necessary to protect her health—physical,

mental, or otherwise. The opponents further argue that the ballot

title and summary do not fully inform voters that the sweep of the

proposed amendment is broad in its collateral effects on current

Florida statutes regulating abortion; that the amendment may

authorize late-term abortions for the sake of maternal health; or

that “health” could encompass mental as well as physical health.

While it may well be true that the proposed amendment would

have broad effects flowing from its adoption that are not fully

- 18 -
explained in the ballot summary, to fairly inform voters of its chief

purpose, a ballot summary—as we have already said—“need not

explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment.”

Treating People Differently, 778 So. 2d at 899 (quoting Advisory Op.

to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Pol. Candidates, 693 So.

2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1997)). Nor must it provide “an exhaustive

explanation of the interpretation and future possible effects of the

amendment.” Id.

The ballot summary here tracks the language of the proposed

amendment itself and provides that “no law shall prohibit, penalize,

delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to

protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s

healthcare provider.” That the proposed amendment’s principal

goal and chief purpose is to limit government interference with

abortion is plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously

reflect the text of the proposed amendment. And the broad sweep

of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the

summary. Denying this requires a flight from reality. We

acknowledge that the text of the amendment—like any legal text—

presents interpretive questions, but we neither endorse nor reject

- 19 -
any litigant’s assertions about how the proposed amendment might

be interpreted in the future and our decision today takes no

position on the scope of legislative discretion that would remain if

the proposed amendment were to become law.

The second question we must consider in reviewing the ballot

title and summary is whether the language of the ballot title and

summary will be misleading to voters. Medical Marijuana I, 132 So.

3d at 797. The ballot title—“Amendment to Limit Government

Interference with Abortion”—clearly identifies the subject of the

proposed amendment. Nonetheless, some opponents still contend

that the ballot title is misleading because, they suggest, the

proposed amendment does more than “limit” government

interference with abortion and the phrase “government interference

with abortion” is improper inflammatory political rhetoric. We

disagree. The word “limit” is not misleading in the title or

summary. The proposed amendment does not eliminate the

government’s ability to “interfere” with abortion in all

circumstances; by its plain language, it limits government

interference before viability or when necessary to protect the

mother’s health. Its reference to article X, section 22 of the Florida

- 20 -
Constitution—which grants the Legislature authority to require

notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before termination of

the minor’s pregnancy—explicitly provides for an instance in which

the legislative authority to “interfere[] with” abortion will be

preserved in the event the proposed amendment is passed. And the

proposed amendment would not prohibit the Legislature from

passing laws “interfering” with abortion after the point of viability

and when the mother’s health is not in jeopardy. The ballot title’s

inclusion of the word “limit” is therefore not misleading but

accurately explains that the Legislature will retain authority to

“interfere[] with” abortions under certain circumstances.

Nor does the ballot title contain inflammatory political

rhetoric. The “government interference” language in the ballot title

is also found in both state and federal abortion precedent. See, e.g.,

N. Fla. Women’s Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So.

2d 612, 615 (Fla. 2003) (“Under our decision, parent and minor are

free to do as they wish in this regard, without government

interference.”), receded from by Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent.

Fla., No. SC2022-1050 (Apr. 1, 2024) (slip op. at 2-3, 50); Dobbs,

597 U.S. at 273 (reasoning that Roe conflated “the right to shield

- 21 -
information from disclosure and the right to make and implement

important personal decisions without governmental interference”).

The “government interference” terminology is a fair description of

the proposal. Thus, we cannot say that the phrase “government

interference” is inflammatory political rhetoric.

The opponents contend that the ballot summary is misleading

because it fails to define “viability,” “health,” or “healthcare

provider”; does not disclose that it might be left to a “healthcare

provider” to determine when a fetus is viable; and does not disclose

that despite its proclamation that no law will prohibit previability

abortion, previability partial-birth abortions will remain prohibited

under the federal partial-birth abortion ban, see 18 U.S.C. § 1531.

But none of these things render the summary misleading or

inadequate in any way.

This Court has held that it will not strike a proposal from the

ballot based upon an argument concerning “the ambiguous legal

effect of the amendment’s text rather than the clarity of the ballot

title and summary.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voter Control of

Gambling (Voter Control of Gambling), 215 So. 3d 1209, 1216 (Fla.

2017). The question for our consideration here is not whether the

- 22 -
proposed constitutional language itself is free of any ambiguity or

whether there are uncertainties regarding the potential legal effect if

the proposed amendment were to pass but whether the ballot

summary misleads voters as to the new constitutional language

voters are asked to adopt in the proposed amendment itself. In

other words, it asks whether the ballot summary will give voters a

false impression about what is contained in the actual text of the

proposed amendment.

The ballot summary essentially follows the language of the

proposed amendment. It says nothing more and nothing less than

what the operative language of the proposed amendment itself says.

In light of this almost verbatim recitation of the text of the proposed

amendment, it cannot be said that the ballot summary will mislead

voters regarding the actual text of the proposed amendment. See

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voting Restoration Amend., 215 So. 3d

1202, 1208 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he ballot title and summary also do not

mislead voters with regard to the actual content of the proposed

amendment. Rather, together they recite the language of the

amendment almost in full.”); Prohibiting State Spending, 959 So. 2d

at 214 (upholding a summary that contained language identical to

- 23 -
that in the proposed amendment); Marriage Protection, 926 So. 2d

1229 (upholding a summary that reiterated almost all of the

language contained in the amendment); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.

re Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amend., 880 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2004)

(same).

The fundamental problem with the main clarity arguments

advanced by the opponents is that they effectively would impose

requirements on the substance of a proposed amendment rather

than require accuracy in the ballot summary. But an alleged

ambiguity of a proposed amendment itself does not render a ballot

summary misleading. And this Court “does not have the authority

or responsibility to rule on the merits or the wisdom of these

proposed initiative amendments.” Treating People Differently, 778

So. 2d at 891 (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Tax Limitation,

644 So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla. 1994)). There is simply no basis in the

constitution for imposing a requirement for clarity on the substance

of a proposed amendment. And section 101.161(1)’s requirement

for a ballot summary to be in “clear and unambiguous language”

cannot be reasonably understood as imposing an extra-

constitutional requirement concerning the substance of proposed

- 24 -
amendments. Nor should a summary be expected to resolve every

interpretive question presented by a proposed amendment. Any

summary that attempts to do so will no doubt be challenged for

making the wrong interpretive choices. Indeed, the sponsor of an

initiative does not have the authority—under the guise of

clarification—to use the ballot summary to narrow or broaden the

meaning of the words used in the amendment text itself. In our

legal system, the meaning of terms placed in the constitution is

determined by the application of established interpretive

conventions and separation of powers principles; legal meaning is

not dictated by an amendment’s sponsor.

The opponents argue that the proposed amendment is

misleading for failing to mention that it would not affect the federal

ban on partial-birth abortion. “This Court has . . . never required

that a ballot summary inform voters as to the current state of

federal law and the impact of a proposed state constitutional

amendment on federal statutory law as it exists at this moment in

time.” Medical Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808. This case is thus

distinguishable from Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re

Adult Use of Marijuana, 315 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2021), in which this

- 25 -
Court concluded that a ballot summary was affirmatively

misleading “regarding the interplay between the proposed

amendment and federal law.” Id. at 1180 (quoting Medical

Marijuana I, 132 So. 3d at 808). There, we expressly rejected the

idea that the ballot summary was defective for failing to “include

language that [wa]s not in the proposed amendment itself,” and

instead concluded that the ballot summary was defective for its

omission of “important language that [wa]s found ‘in the proposed

amendment itself.’ ” Id. at 1183 (quoting Medical Marijuana I, 132

So. 3d at 808).

In the end, the ballot title and summary fairly inform voters, in

clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purpose of the

amendment and they are not misleading. The ballot summary’s

nearly verbatim recitation of the proposed amendment language is

an “accurate, objective, and neutral summary of the proposed

amendment.” See Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d at 653-54

(“[A]n accurate, objective, and neutral summary of the proposed

amendment is the sine qua non of the citizen-driven process of

amending our constitution.”). Accordingly, there is no basis to

- 26 -
reject the proposed summary and ballot title under section

101.161, Florida Statutes.

In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that “the polestar of

our analysis is the candor and accuracy with which the ballot

language informs the voters of a proposed amendment’s effects.”

Dep’t of State v. Fla. Greyhound Ass’n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 513, 520

(Fla. 2018). Here, there is no lack of candor or accuracy: the ballot

language plainly informs voters that the material legal effects of the

proposed amendment will be that the government will be unable to

enact laws that “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict” previability

abortions or abortions necessary to protect the mother’s health. It

is undeniable that those are the main and material legal effects of

the proposed amendment.

“[W]e have also recognized ‘that voters may be presumed to

have the ability to reason and draw logical conclusions’ from the

information they are given.” Id. at 520 (quoting Smith v. Am.

Airlines, Inc., 606 So. 2d 618, 621 (Fla. 1992)). Because of this,

ballot language—as we have previously mentioned—“is not required

to explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment.”

Id. (quoting Smith, 606 So. 2d at 620). We thus presume that

- 27 -
voters will have an understanding of the obviously broad sweep of

this proposed amendment despite the fact that the ballot summary

does not and cannot reveal its every possible ramification or

collateral effect. Cf. Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Ltd. Casinos, 644

So. 2d at 75 (noting that “[t]he seventy-five word limit placed on the

ballot summary as required by statute does not lend itself to an

explanation of all of a proposed amendment’s details”).

Even if elements of ambiguity in the text of a proposed

amendment could result in the invalidity of a proposal—a

proposition we reject—no such ambiguity has been shown here.

Rather, the challenged concepts have been at the forefront of the

abortion debate in this country for more than fifty years—a debate

that may be at its height today in the wake of Dobbs. And while

some indeterminacy remains regarding these concepts, it is difficult

to imagine a Florida voter in 2024 who would be befuddled in any

material way by the ballot summary or proposed amendment due to

the use of the terms “viability,” “health,” and “healthcare provider.”

Regarding whether ambiguity in the text of a proposed

amendment can be the basis for a finding that the proposal is

invalid, we acknowledge tension in our case law. But we have never

- 28 -
given a reasoned explanation of any basis for applying the

requirements designed to prevent misleading ballot summaries as a

substantive limitation on the content of a proposed amendment.

And our most recent pronouncement on the subject is in

Department of State v. Hollander, 256 So. 3d 1300, 1311 (Fla.

2018), in which we unequivocally stated: “[T]his Court has held that

it will not strike a proposal from the ballot based upon an argument

concerning ‘the ambiguous legal effect of the amendment’s text

rather than the clarity of the ballot title and summary.’ ” (quoting

Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d at 1216). We see no reason to

depart from our most recent ruling on this question.

The opponents emphasize our decision in Askew v. Firestone,

421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982). But Askew is entirely inapposite. In

Askew, we determined that the chief purpose of the proposed

amendment was “to remove the two-year ban on lobbying by former

legislators and elected officers.” Id. at 156. We found the ballot

summary to be fatally defective because although it “indicate[d] that

the amendment [wa]s a restriction on one’s lobbying activities, the

amendment actually g[ave] incumbent office holders, upon filing a

financial disclosure statement, a right to immediately commence

- 29 -
lobbying before their former agencies which [wa]s . . . precluded.”

Id. at 155-56. In other words, the ballot summary was fatally

misleading because it operated to permit something when it said

that it was “[p]rohibit[ing]” something. Id. at 153. No similar

infirmity exists in this case. As previously stated, “[t]hat the

proposed amendment’s principal goal and chief purpose is to limit

government interference with abortion is plainly stated in terms

that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed

amendment.” Supra at 19.

The decision in Wadhams v. Board of County Commissioners of

Sarasota County, 567 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1990), is likewise

distinguishable from the circumstances here. In Wadhams, the full

text of a charter provision—with amendments engrossed—was

placed on the ballot so that the voters were not informed of what

was being changed in the text of the charter. Id. at 415. We held

“that the chief purpose of the amendment was to curtail the Charter

Review Board’s right to meet,” but nothing on the ballot gave the

voter information necessary to understand that fact. Id. at 416.

Nothing like that is occurring in this case.

- 30 -
 We are told by dissenting colleagues that “the vagueness of the

proposed amendment itself leaves many key issues undetermined.”

Dissenting op. at 46 (Grosshans, J.). Indeed, we are advised that

the “language and structure” of the proposed amendment are

“overwhelmingly vague and ambiguous” and that the proposal in

fact has “no readily discernible meaning.” Dissenting op. at 66

(Sasso, J.). We are further instructed that the summary—in

tracking the text of the proposed amendment—“does not attempt to

explain that the amendment itself is similarly vague and

ambiguous.” Id. at 76. Furthermore, the supposed ambiguity is

not “self-evident from the vague and ambiguous nature of the

summary.” Id. We are also told that the language of the summary

and proposed amendment “hides the ball” and “explains nothing”

but then are instructed on a series of far-reaching “effects” gleaned

from that very language. Dissenting op. at 53 (Francis, J.). Again,

as we have explained, the suggestion that an amendment sponsor

must use a ballot summary to “clarify” the text of an assertedly

vague proposal ignores limits on the sponsor’s own authority. And

we see no basis in law or common sense to require a ballot

summary to announce, as if in a warning label, “caution: this

- 31 -
amendment contains terms with contestable meanings or

applications.” Voters can see and decide for themselves how the

specificity of the proposal’s terms relates to the proposal’s merits.

For reasons that are evident from what we have already said, none

of this is convincing. 3

Lawyers are adept at finding ambiguity. Show me the text and

I’ll show you the ambiguity. The predominant reasoning in the

dissents would set this Court up as the master of the constitution

with unfettered discretion to find a proposed amendment

ambiguous and then to deprive the people of the right to be the

judges of the merits of the proposal. It would open up a playground

for motivated reasoning and judicial willfulness. This Court has an

3. It is also suggested that the voters should be informed that
the proposed amendment “could, and likely would, impact how
personhood is defined for purposes of article I, section 2 of our
constitution.” Dissenting op. at 49 (Grosshans, J.). The
constitutional status of a preborn child under existing article I,
section 2 presents complex and unsettled questions. Until our
decision today to recede from T.W., this Court’s jurisprudence for
the past thirty-odd years had assumed that preborn human beings
are not constitutional persons. See T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1193-94
(treating the fetus as only “potential life”), receded from on other
grounds by Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla., No. SC2022-
1050 (Apr. 1, 2024). Given the unsettled nature of this issue, any
“disclosure” would be speculative and therefore unwarranted.

- 32 -
important role in determining the validity of proposed amendments

and ensuring that ballot summaries do not mislead the voters. But

nothing in the law of this state gives the Court a stranglehold on the

amendment process. We decline to adopt a standard that would

effectively vest us with the power to bar an amendment from the

ballot because of a supposed ambiguity in the text of the

amendment. We decline to encroach on the prerogative to amend

their constitution that the people have reserved to themselves.

D. Facial Invalidity

In 2020, section 16.061(1), Florida Statutes, was amended to

direct the Attorney General that in addition to requesting an

advisory opinion regarding the compliance of a proposed

amendment and ballot language with article XI, section 3 and

section 101.161, she also requests an opinion as to “whether the

proposed amendment is facially invalid under the United States

Constitution.” See ch. 2020-15, § 2, Laws of Fla. Despite this

directive, the Attorney General failed to request that we issue an

opinion concerning the facial invalidity of the proposed amendment

in this proceeding, and only one opponent contends that the

proposed amendment is facially invalid. Opponent Center for Life

- 33 -
argues that the proposed amendment is facially invalid under the

Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,4 because it is

preempted by federal law, namely 18 U.S.C. § 1531, which prohibits

partial-birth abortion. 5 Specifically, the Center for Life argues that

the “viability provision” of the proposed amendment—which

purportedly would ban any law that “prohibit[s], penalize[s],

delay[s], or restrict[s] abortion before viability”—sets up an

inherent, irreconcilable conflict with federal law because the

proposed amendment’s efforts to prohibit any restriction on

4. See art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. Const. (“This Constitution, and the
Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”).

5. Under federal law, partial-birth abortion is defined as

deliberately and intentionally vaginally deliver[ing] a
living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation,
the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or,
in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person
knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus[,]

18 U.S.C. § 1531(b)(1)(A), and is prohibited unless “necessary to
save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical
disorder, physical illness, or physical injury,” 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a).

- 34 -
previability abortion cannot coexist with the federal ban on partial-

birth abortion. Neither the Sponsor nor any of the proponents

addressed the Center for Life’s argument.

Assuming congressional preemption is even an appropriate

consideration for this Court in assessing facial validity, 6 there is no

basis for accepting the Center for Life’s argument here. For a

provision of state law, including a state constitutional amendment,

“to be held facially unconstitutional, the challenger must

demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists in which the

[provision] can be constitutionally applied.” Abdool v. Bondi, 141

So. 3d 529, 538 (Fla. 2014). The federal prohibition on partial-birth

abortion would by no means invalidate the proposed amendment in

all its applications.

6. As a threshold issue, no one has briefed whether section
16.061 uses the phrase “invalid under the United States
Constitution” to include any proposed amendment that would be
preempted by an act of Congress or if that phrase should instead be
interpreted to apply only if a proposed amendment is in conflict
with a substantive provision of the United States Constitution. See
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana,
SC2023-0682, at 16 note 7 (Apr. 1, 2024).

- 35 -
 III. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the proposed amendment complies with the

single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida

Constitution, and that the ballot title and summary comply with

section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes. And there is no basis for

concluding that the proposed amendment is facially invalid under

the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we approve the

proposed amendment for placement on the ballot.

No rehearing will be permitted.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, LABARGA, and COURIEL, JJ., concur.
MUÑIZ, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which CANADY and
COURIEL, JJ., concur.
GROSSHANS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SASSO, J.,
concurs.
FRANCIS, J., dissents with an opinion.
SASSO, J., dissents with an opinion, in which GROSSHANS and
FRANCIS, JJ., concur.

MUÑIZ, C.J., concurring.

Animating the majority’s decision today is the constitutional

principle that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people.” Art. I,

§ 1, Fla. Const. A judge’s obedience to that principle does not

signal personal indifference to the objective justice of a proposed

- 36 -
constitutional amendment. It also does not imply that our legal

tradition views considerations of justice as irrelevant to legal

interpretation. See, e.g., Bancroft Inv. Corp. v. City of Jacksonville,

27 So. 2d 162, 171 (Fla. 1946) (“If the positive law (constitution or

statute) does not give a direct answer to the question, the court is at

liberty on the factual basis to indulge the rule of reason to reach a

result consonant with law and justice.”). Instead, our Court’s

constrained role in the amendment process is dictated by the

limited authority and task the people have assigned us.

By contrast, questions of justice are appropriately at the heart

of the voters’ assessment of a proposed amendment like the one

under review. With its reference to the existence of “inalienable

rights” in all persons, our constitution’s Declaration of Rights

assumes a pre-constitutional, objective moral reality that demands

our respect—indeed, a moral order that government exists to

protect. The proposed amendment would constitutionalize

restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire

class of human beings from private harm. It would cast into doubt

the people’s authority even to enact protections that are prudent,

compassionate, and mindful of the complexities involved. Under

- 37 -
our system of government, it is up to the voters—not this Court—to

decide whether such a rule is consistent with the deepest

commitments of our political community.

With these considerations in mind, we fully concur in the

Court’s opinion.

CANADY and COURIEL, JJ., concur.

GROSSHANS, J., dissenting.

In the decades after Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was

rarely an issue on which the public made decisions—either directly

or through their elected representatives. See Roe, 410 U.S. 113

(1973). Instead, the courts acted as policymakers, and judges

determined the boundaries and scope of abortion regulations.

However, courts were unable to settle the complicated issues

surrounding abortion, and even the U.S. Supreme Court struggled

to justify the constitutional basis for such a right. See id. at 153

(holding that abortion is a constitutional right as part of the “right

of privacy”); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833,

846 (1992) (joint opinion) (“Constitutional protection of the woman’s

decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (emphasis added)); cf. Dobbs

- 38 -
v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 279 (2022) (“The

Court [in Casey] abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and

instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”).

Stressing these points and others, the Supreme Court

relinquished the power that Roe claimed—returning the issue of

abortion “to the people and their elected representatives.”

See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 259. Now, in the post-Dobbs era, citizens

must wrestle with how to balance the compelling interests of bodily

autonomy and unborn life, while considering scientific advances,

policy choices, and serious ethical implications. Cf. Casey, 505

U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and

dissenting in part) (“The permissibility of abortion, and the

limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions

in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and

then voting.”). These are difficult issues, and both sides of the

debate have acted, at times rashly, in an attempt to resolve an issue

on which there is little consensus. And we are reminded, yet again,

what has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court many times—

- 39 -
abortion is fundamentally different. See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 257;

Roe, 410 U.S. at 159; Casey, 505 U.S. at 852 (joint opinion).

Today, we consider an initiative that proposes to amend our

constitution by providing express protection for abortion

procedures. The proposed amendment, with one exception, broadly

forbids any “law” “prohibit[ing], penaliz[ing], delay[ing], or

restrict[ing] abortion before viability or when necessary to protect

the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare

provider.”

We have described our role in these advisory opinions as

narrow. We determine if the proposed amendment meets our

constitution’s single-subject requirement and assess whether the

ballot summary offers an explanatory statement of the amendment’s

chief purpose. See In re Advisory Op. to Att’y. Gen. re Use of

Marijuana for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471, 478 (Fla.

2015); cf. art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. (single-subject rule); § 101.161,

Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring summary to set forth “explanatory

statement . . . of the chief purpose of the measure”).

Nevertheless, as revealed by our precedent, the precise scope

of our review in this advisory role is subject to debate. The majority

- 40 -
implies that we check to see if the summary and title track the

amendment’s text. See majority op. at 23-24 (collecting cases

which involved summaries that tracked the proposed amendments).

However, in a long line of decisions, we have consistently

interpreted our role to be more comprehensive and have examined

the material legal effects of the amendment—thereby ensuring that

the voters are not misled and have fair notice of the decision before

them on the ballot. See, e.g., Wadhams v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of

Sarasota Cnty., 567 So. 2d 414, 416 (Fla. 1990); Dep’t of State v.

Fla. Greyhound Ass’n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla. 2018) (“Ballot

language may be clearly and conclusively defective either in an

affirmative sense, because it misleads the voters as to the material

effects of the amendment, or in a negative sense by failing to inform

the voters of those material effects.” (emphasis added)); Advisory Op.

to Att’y Gen. re Prohibits Possession of Defined Assault Weapons

(Assault Weapons), 296 So. 3d 376, 381 (Fla. 2020) (same). As

Justice Sasso notes in her dissent, no party in this case has argued

that our precedent applying this approach in ballot-summary

review is erroneous. And under this approach, we have found both

citizens’ initiative proposals and legislatively proposed ballot

- 41 -
initiatives to be defective. Yet, to my knowledge, the Legislature has

not acted to restrict or narrow this Court’s role in reviewing a ballot

summary, nor has it attempted to clarify that our interpretation is

improper.

Accordingly, our precedent supports the conclusion that our

statutory duty requires more than simply inspecting the summary

for technical compliance. Instead, we determine if the summary

clearly explains the chief purpose of the amendment. This will, at

times, require the summary do more than simply echo the

amendment’s text.

We have stated many times that the summary and title must

be accurate and informative so that the “electorate is advised of the

true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment.” See, e.g.,

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 490

(Fla. 1994) (emphasis added); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Med.

Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amend., 880 So. 2d 675, 679 (Fla. 2004)

(“These requirements make certain that the ‘electorate is advised of

the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment.’ ” (quoting

Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d at 490)); Detzner v. League of Women

Voters of Fla., 256 So. 3d 803, 807 (Fla. 2018) (same). And I

- 42 -
acknowledge that the summary “need not explain every detail or

ramification of the proposed amendment” so long as they “give the

voter fair notice of the decision he or she must make.” Detzner, 256

So. 3d at 807 (citations omitted).

However, I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that if the

summary is an “almost verbatim recitation of the text of the

proposed amendment” it cannot be misleading. Majority op. at 23.

The majority finds that a parroting summary cannot be affirmatively

“mislead[ing] . . . regarding the actual text of the proposed

amendment.” Id. That, however, fails to address if the summary is

negatively misleading for omitting material legal effects. And in

declining to consider this point, the majority distinguishes our

opinion in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Adult Use of

Marijuana, 315 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2021) (rejecting a summary for

omitting material language found in the amendment), seemingly

characterizing that case as the axiomatic example of misleading by

omission.

The majority also does not account for the numerous other

cases that have rejected summaries for misleading by omission, and

others that have approved summaries while reaffirming that

- 43 -
doctrine. We have repeatedly reaffirmed the broader holding that

summaries must tell voters the amendment’s legal effects. See, e.g.,

Evans v. Firestone, 457 So. 2d 1351, 1355 (Fla. 1984) (the summary

“should tell the voter the legal effect of the amendment, and no

more”); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot. Amend., 926

So. 2d 1229, 1238 (Fla. 2006) (same); Assault Weapons, 296 So. 3d

at 381 (ballot can be clearly and conclusively defective “in a

negative sense by failing to inform the voters [of] material effects of

the amendment” (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to

Competitive Energy Mkt. for Customers of Inv’r-Owned Utils., 287 So.

3d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 2020)); Greyhound, 253 So. 3d at 520 (same).

Although we have indicated that parroting the language of an

amendment in the summary may easily satisfy the misleading

prong, 7 we have never claimed that doing so would always be

7. See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Voting Restoration Amend.,
215 So. 3d 1202, 1208 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he ballot title and summary
also do not mislead voters with regard to the actual content of the
proposed amendment. Rather, together they recite the language of
the amendment almost in full.”); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re
Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the
Destruction of a Live Hum. Embryo, 959 So. 2d 210, 214 (Fla. 2007)
(upholding a summary that contained language identical to that in
the proposed amendment); Fla. Marriage Prot. Amend., 926 So. 2d
at 1236-40 (upholding a summary that reiterated almost all of the

- 44 -
sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. For example, in

Wadhams, we found that even though a ballot contained “the entire

section as it would actually appear subsequent to amendment,” it

still “fail[ed] to contain an explanatory statement of the amendment”

and thus was “deceptive, because although it contains an

absolutely true statement, it omits to state a material fact necessary

in order to make the statement made not misleading.” 567 So. 2d

at 416; see also Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 15-16, 18 (Fla.

2000). 8 Nor have we receded from our cases requiring the summary

to inform the voter as to material legal effects. See Live Human

Embryo, 959 So. 2d at 215. Sometimes a verbatim summary will

capture the material legal effects contained in the amendment. But

sometimes it will not. See, e.g., Wadhams, 567 So. 2d at 416.

language contained in the amendment); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.
re Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amend., 880 So. 2d at 679 (same).

8. Even where we have upheld a ballot summary, we have still
reaffirmed Wadhams and its logic, reiterating our precedents
against parroting while approving a summary because it “is an
accurate description of what the proposed amendment will do,
consistent with the requirement that ballot language accurately
represent the main legal effect and ramifications of a proposed
amendment.” Detzner v. Anstead, 256 So. 3d 820, 824 (Fla. 2018)
(emphases added) (first citing Armstrong, 773 So. 2d at 12; and
then citing Wadhams, 567 So. 2d at 417-18).

- 45 -
 Turning to this ballot summary, the vagueness of the proposed

amendment itself leaves many key issues undetermined. Thus, as

Justice Sasso notes, we ask: “[I]s the Sponsor relieved of its

obligation to explain the legal effect of the proposed amendment

just because the amendment has no readily discernable meaning?”

Dissenting op. at 75-76 (Sasso, J.) Like Justice Sasso, I conclude

the answer is no and agree with her detailed analysis that the

summary’s language fails to convey the amendment’s ramifications

to the voter.

The majority implies that I am concerned only with “ambiguity

in the text of the amendment” itself. Majority op. at 33. That is not

so. On the contrary, it is the summary that has failed to adequately

explain the amendment. In my view, the summary does not give

the voter any clarity on the decision they must actually make or

reveal the amendment’s chief purpose. Instead, it misleads by

omission and fails to convey the breadth of what the amendment

actually accomplishes—to enshrine broad, undefined terms in our

constitution that will lead to decades of litigation.

A voter may think this amendment simply returns Florida to a

pre-Dobbs status quo. It does not. A voter may think that a

- 46 -
healthcare provider would be clearly defined as a licensed physician

specializing in women’s health. It is not. A voter may think that

viability falls within a readily apparent time frame. It does not. A

voter may think that the comma is an insignificant grammatical tool

that would have very little interpretive purpose. It will not. And,

critically, the voter may think this amendment results in settling

this issue once and for all. It does not. Instead, this amendment

returns abortion issues back to the courts to interpret scope,

boundary, definitions, and policy, effectively removing it from the

people and their elected representatives. Perhaps this is a choice

that Floridians wish to make, but it should be done with clarity as

to their vote’s ramifications and not based on a misleading ballot

summary.

To be clear, I do not criticize the content of the proposed

amendment itself. The amendment’s sponsors may draft an

amendment as they see fit. But, contrary to the majority’s

assessment, it would seem “common sense” that the language a

sponsor chooses clearly affects what must be included in the

summary to meet the statutory requirements. The sponsor’s

burden to properly summarize the material legal effects of a

- 47 -
proposed amendment is not lessened by its decision to include

undefined terms or broad, abstract language.

Moreover, the breadth of this amendment would likely impact

existing constitutional provisions. Article I, section 2, a provision of

our constitution’s Declaration of Rights, states that “[a]ll natural

persons . . . are equal before the law and have inalienable rights,”

including “the right to enjoy and defend life.” Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const.

We have held time and again that a summary must “identify

the provisions of the constitution substantially affected by the

proposed amendment.” Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care

Providers, 705 So. 2d at 566 (citing Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d at

490). This is required “in order for the public to fully comprehend

the contemplated changes.” Id. 9

9. The requirement that a summary list substantially affected
provisions is so embedded in our jurisprudence that some older
cases have described it as being rooted in our constitution. See
Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 989-90 (Fla. 1984); Tax
Limitation, 644 So. 2d at 490; Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right of
Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 565-66
(Fla. 1998) (reiterating that “it is imperative that an initiative
identify the provisions of the constitution substantially affected by
the proposed amendment”); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Amend. to
Bar Gov’t from Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub.
Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 892 (Fla. 2000) (same). More recently, we
have found that the modern clarity statute requires the same rule.

- 48 -
 The amendment’s potential effects on article I, section 2 have

present significance, even though we don’t have the benefit of a

robust body of case law on the topic. That is, the public should be

made aware that the scope of the amendment could, and likely

would, impact how personhood is defined for purposes of article I,

section 2 of our constitution. The voters are owed that “candor and

accuracy.” See majority op. at 27 (quoting Greyhound, 253 So. 3d

at 520).

I do not deny that the return of abortion policy to the states in

the wake of Dobbs has resulted in a minefield of potential issues,

many of which are “unsettled.” Majority op. at 32 n.3. As I

previously discussed, citizens have not been asked to contend with

these questions in decades. In similar fashion, this Court has failed

to address whether the rights guaranteed in article I, section 2

apply to the unborn and, if so, what the scope of those rights could

See Treating People Differently Based on Race, 778 So. 2d at 898
(rejecting a ballot summary as misleading under section 101.161
because it failed to mention its effect on article I, section 2’s
nondiscrimination provision; concluding that “the ballot titles are
defective because of the misleading negative implication that no
such constitutional provision addressing differential treatment
currently exists”).

- 49 -
be. However, our failure to decide on this issue does not render the

provision void. Nor does it alleviate a sponsor’s duty to advise the

voter of impact. Nowhere has this requirement to inform been

arbitrarily limited to substantial effects on issues that this Court

has already weighed in on. Cf. Greyhound, 253 So. 3d at 523

(evaluating substantial effect on then-recently added article X,

section 23, and citing no cases for its interpretation). While a

substantial effect would be even more obvious if we had previously

addressed this issue, our silence should not eliminate a citizen’s

right to be informed. If advised of the conflict, the voter could

recognize for themselves that, at some level, an amendment

providing broad protection for abortion would bear upon

constitutional personhood rights as applied to the unborn child.

Thus, the voter would be able to consider the choice before them

and the decision they must make. See Fine, 448 So. 2d at 989.

Accordingly, I cannot say that failing to inform voters as to the

proposed amendment’s impact on article I, section 2 is acceptable.

In summary, Floridians have the right to amend their

constitution through the initiative process, and it is an integral part

of our state’s commitment to responsible citizenship. However,

- 50 -
there are constitutional and statutory requirements that must be

satisfied in order for an amendment to reach the ballot. Holding a

sponsor to those requirements is far from what the majority

characterizes as a “stranglehold on the amendment process.” See

majority op. at 33. Consequently, I find the ballot summary

conclusively defective for failing to inform the voter of the material

legal effects of the amendment, including the substantial effect this

amendment could have on article I, section 2 of our constitution.

This conclusion requires me to respectfully dissent from the

majority’s opinion.

SASSO, J., concurs.

FRANCIS, J., dissenting.

The issue of abortion is incredibly divisive. See Dobbs v.

Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 292 (2022) (“Roe [v.

Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)] ‘inflamed’ a national issue that has

remained bitterly divisive for the past half century. And for the past

30 years, [Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v.] Casey [505 U.S. 883

(1992)] has done the same.” (citations omitted)).

When Dobbs found there was no federal constitutional right to

it, the Court “return[ed] the issue of abortion to the people’s elected

- 51 -
representatives.” Id. at 232. Our elected representatives here in

Florida did address the issue of abortion legislatively. See §§

390.011-.0111, .0112, Fla. Stat. (2023). But those laws have faced

legal challenges.

Simultaneously, groups have undertaken the use of the

initiative process, see art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const., to enshrine abortion

in our state constitution.

Today, we are asked to opine on one such effort—an

Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion. 10

As written, the title and the ballot summary (which parrots the

amendment) fail to give the voters what they need to make an

10. Specifically, we must determine whether the language of
this proposed amendment embraces but one subject, see art. XI, §
3, Fla. Const., and whether the ballot summary explains the “chief
purpose” of the proposed amendment in clear, unambiguous, non-
misleading terms, § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). The short ballot
title must also be clear, unambiguous, and non-misleading.
Together, the ballot summary and title must “ ‘provide fair notice of
the content of the proposed amendment’ to voters so that they ‘will
not be misled as to [the proposed amendment’s] purpose, and can
cast an intelligent and informed ballot.’ ” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.
re Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So. 3d 1209, 1215 (Fla. 2017)
(alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to
Att’y Gen. re Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705
So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1998)).

- 52 -
informed decision; thus, both violate the truth-in-packaging law. §

101.161(1), Fla. Stat.

The title fails to communicate to the voters that the purpose of

the proposed amendment is ending (as opposed to “limiting”)

legislative and executive action on abortion, while inviting limitless

and protracted litigation in the courts because of its use of vague

and undefined terms. Just as it played out on the federal stage for

over 50 years, the issue of abortion—far from the people settling the

matter—will continue to be decided by each iteration of this Court.

And the summary hides the ball as to the chief purpose of the

proposed amendment: which, ultimately, is to—for the first time in

Florida history—grant an almost unrestricted right to abortion. 11

Because the summary only parrots the language of the

proposed amendment, it explains nothing, and does not disclose its

chief purpose. See § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. The fact that the

11. I disagree with the majority’s conclusions that “the broad
sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of
the summary,” majority op. at 19, and that “[t]he ballot title’s
inclusion of the word ‘limit’ is . . . not misleading but accurately
explains that the Legislature will retain authority to ‘interfere[] with’
abortions under certain circumstances.” Majority op. at 21 (second
alteration in original).

- 53 -
language has a “broad sweep,” see majority op. at 19, as to its “no

law” restriction, to me, doesn’t end the inquiry. Rather, the sponsor

is statutorily and constitutionally required to provide the voter an

explanation of the summary’s vague language (e.g., as to what

constitutes “health” or who may qualify as a “healthcare provider”),

as well as tell the voter of the amendment’s chief effects. This is not

some run-of-the-mill restoration of Roe—it goes far beyond that into

uncharted territory in this State.

As to the majority’s statement that the Court cannot place a

“stranglehold” on the initiative process, majority op. at 33, I could

not agree more! But this is not that. It is my view that while the

constitution enshrines the reserved right of the people to amend

their constitution, this Court also has a role in ensuring the people

can exercise that right free of anything that would mislead them or

present them with ambiguity. See art. V, § 3(b)(10), art. IV, § 10,

art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const.; § 101.161, Fla. Stat. 12 And quite simply,

12. See supra note 10.

- 54 -
for the reasons expressed in greater detail here and elsewhere, the

summary and title, I submit, don’t pass muster. 13

The effects I discern from the parroted-proposed-amendment

summary here—which effects are the best evidence of its chief

purpose—are fourfold:

(1) to immediately abrogate meaningful abortion laws and

restrictions;

(2) to eliminate any meaningful, future participation by the

Legislature by prohibiting any laws on previability abortions and

subjecting any laws regulating postviability abortions to a

“healthcare provider’s” veto;

(3) to—by eliminating the Legislature’s interference—vastly

expand the right to abortion at any time during pregnancy as a

“health” issue for the mother; and

13. I also remain convinced that our precedent has read the
single-subject requirement far too broadly. However, as I tackle
that topic in my dissent in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General
re Adult Personal Use of Marijuana, SC2023-0682 (Apr. 1, 2024)
(Francis, J., dissenting), I limit my dissent here to the proposal’s
violation of the truth-in-packaging provisions.

- 55 -
 (4) troublingly, to—by ignoring the State’s legitimate interests

in protecting life—completely redefine abortion as a health issue in

Florida without saying so.

I address these four effects—that are left unexplained by the

summary—in part I, below. And in part II, I further address why

the title will mislead voters.

I. Ballot Summary

(1)

First, the ballot summary doesn’t explain that the scope and

immediate impact of the “no law” language is to abrogate Florida’s

current prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations on both pre and

postviability abortions. This includes current laws defining viability

and drawing the line at a certain number of weeks, §§ 390.011(15),

.0111(1), Fla. Stat. (2023); those requiring a sonogram and

informed consent, § 390.0111(3), Fla. Stat. (2023); and those

prohibiting abortions postviability with limited exceptions. §§

390.0111(1)(a)-(c), .0112, Fla. Stat. (2023).

The summary also provides that the Legislature can’t make

laws interfering with a “healthcare provider’s” determination that a

- 56 -
late term abortion is medically necessary for the sake of the

patient’s “health.”

“Health” is undefined and, thus, not limited to just life-

threatening physical conditions. Rather, “health” could mean

anything, really. And “health” seems to include nebulous

conditions that could be used to justify a late term abortion. The

ballot summary does not explain this.

(2)

Second, the ballot summary doesn’t explain that the proposed

amendment effectively eliminates the Legislature’s ability to pass

laws in the future regulating abortion in any meaningful,

substantive way. This prohibition applies to previability

pregnancies. But it applies to postviability pregnancies, too,

because the undefined “healthcare provider” gets a veto over any

laws the Legislature might be able to pass to protect the unborn as

long as said “healthcare provider” decides a “health” issue exists

necessitating an abortion. 14 The ballot summary does not explain

this.

14. I completely agree with Justice Sasso’s excellent dissent
concerning the vagueness of the language used by the sponsor,

- 57 -
 (3)

Third, the ballot summary doesn’t explain that by eliminating

the Legislature’s ability to meaningfully pass laws regulating

abortion either pre or postviability, and housing the proposed

amendment under Article I’s “Declaration of Rights” in the Florida

Constitution, the amendment vastly expands the right to abortion

beyond anything Florida has ever done in the history of the State.

Whatever limits on the “right” to abortion remain are placed

squarely in the “healthcare provider’s” hands as ultimate

decisionmaker. The ballot summary neither explains nor discloses

this.

(4)

Fourth, the summary doesn’t explain that the proposed

amendment implicitly and completely redefines the abortion issue

as a “patient’s health” issue without acknowledging what even Roe

and Casey acknowledged: the State’s compelling interest in

though, arguendo, for purposes of my dissent, I assume that the
placement of the comma means the worst-case scenario: the
“healthcare provider” also determines viability. See dissenting op.
at 74-75 (Sasso, J.).

- 58 -
protecting “the potentiality of human life,” particularly viable

pregnancies. See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 228, 271 (defining “viability”

as the ability to survive outside the womb).15

While I recognize that our review in ballot initiative cases is

narrow, this case is different because abortion is different. Dobbs,

597 U.S. at 218 (Syllabus) (“Abortion is different because it destroys

what Roe termed ‘potential life’ . . . . None of the other decisions

cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed

by abortion.”). The exercise of a “right” to an abortion literally

results in a devastating infringement on the right of another person:

the right to live. And our Florida Constitution recognizes that “life”

is a “basic right” for “[a]ll natural persons.” Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const.

One must recognize the unborn’s competing right to life and the

State’s moral duty to protect that life.

15. Roe found that “in ‘the stage subsequent to viability,’
which in 1973 roughly coincided with the beginning of the third
trimester, the State’s interest in the ‘potentiality of human life’
became compelling, and therefore a State could ‘regulate, and even
proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother.’ ” Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 271 (citing Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-65).

- 59 -
 Contrary to what the summary—which parrots the proposed

amendment—suggests, abortion is not just about a medical

procedure, and it is not just about the rights of women to bodily

integrity. “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which

Americans hold sharply conflicting views.” Dobbs, 597 U.S. at

223. 16 The summary does not address this. Instead, it is a Trojan

horse for the elimination of any recognition of the State’s interest in

protecting what Roe termed “potential life.”

II. Title

Based on the four points above, it is clear that the title is also

misleading in its use of the term “limit government interference.” A

more truthful title may be “eliminating the Legislature’s ability to

regulate abortion in any meaningful way.”

16. “Some believe fervently that a human person comes into
being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life.” Id. at
223-24. “Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion
invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents
women from achieving full equality.” Id. at 224. “Still others in a
third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but
not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of
views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.” Id.
at 223-25.

- 60 -
 Beyond this, the current title isn’t even accurate because it

does not limit government interference: it actively encourages it.

This is so because the prohibition on the law- and rule-making

authority of the legislative and executive branches does not extend

to the judicial branch. In fact, quite the opposite: the summary—

which parrots the amendment—reflects multiple undefined terms

that invite protracted litigation and, thus, limitless interference by

the judicial branch of government.

This is exactly what happened after Roe, when abortion was

recognized as a fundamental right under the United States

Constitution. It led to 50 years of protracted litigation and to the

courts continually policing state provisions seeking to protect the

lives of both the unborn and their mothers. 17

17. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428
U.S. 52 (1976) (blocking Missouri law requiring spousal consent for
abortion); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977) (reversing decision
striking a Connecticut law that excluded abortion services from
Medicaid coverage); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
(striking Pennsylvania law requiring physicians to save the life of a
potentially viable fetus as unconstitutionally vague); Harris v.
McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) (upholding federal law proscribing
federal funding for abortions except for abortions necessary to
either preserve the mother’s life or terminate pregnancies resulting
from rape or incest); H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981)
(upholding Utah law requiring parental notification when the

- 61 -
 After Dobbs returned the abortion issue to the states, both

abortion proponents and opponents identified the states as the new

abortion battleground and started filing lawsuits in the courts. 18

patient is a minor living with parents); City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for
Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) (striking portions of Ohio
law imposing limitations, such as a waiting period, parental consent
without judicial bypass, and a ban on abortions outside of hospitals
after the first trimester); Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) (striking Pennsylvania law
requiring informed consent to include information about fetal
development and alternatives to abortion); Webster v. Reprod.
Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490 (1989) (upholding Missouri law that
required physician viability testing and blocked state funding and
state facility participation in abortion services); Casey, 505 U.S. 833
(announcing “undue burden” test in landmark case striking
portions of Pennsylvania abortion law); Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S.
703 (2000) (upholding Colorado law limiting protest and leafletting
close to an abortion clinic); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)
(striking Nebraska law banning partial birth abortion); Gonzales v.
Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (upholding 2003 federal law banning
partial birth abortion).

18. See Center for Reproductive Rights, New Digital Tool
Provides State-by-State Analysis of High Court Rulings on Abortion,
https://reproductiverights.org/state-constitutions-abortion-rights-
digital-tool (last visited Mar. 14, 2024) (“Since the U.S. Supreme
Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion in its
2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,
states have become the battlegrounds for abortion rights.”); Alliance
Defending Freedom, “What You May Not Know: How ADF Helped
Overturn Roe v. Wade,” https://adflegal.org/article/what-you-may-
not-know-how-adf-helped-overturn-roe-v-wade (last visited Mar. 27,
2024) (“Roe v. Wade has finally been overturned. But this does not
mean the work of the pro-life movement is over—far from it . . . .”;
playing video of ADF CEO, President, and General Counsel Kristen

- 62 -
Those state lawsuits began immediately. 19 According to the

Brennan Center for Justice’s “State Court Abortion Litigation

Waggoner explaining that there are now generally four areas of
abortion laws that will be litigated post-Dobbs: (1) trigger laws (state
laws with provisions restricting or prohibition abortion to some
degree upon Roe being overturned); (2) pre-Roe laws limiting
abortion; (3) post-Roe/pre-Dobbs laws stricken under Roe; and (4)
post-Dobbs (new) laws restricting and regulating abortions); Becky
Sullivan, “With Roe Overturned, State Constitutions Are Now at the
Center of the Abortion Fight,”
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108251712/roe-v-wade-
abortion-ruling-state-constitutions (last visited Mar. 14, 2024)
(“Now, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted
to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must
contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places,
guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.”); see
also David S. Cohen et. al., The New Abortion Battleground, 123
Colum. L. Rev. 1, 2–3 (2023) (predicting that “interjurisdictional
abortion wars are coming” now that there is no longer a national,
uniform abortion right, which will involve intervention by the federal
government).

19. See American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Reproductive
Rights Organizations Go to Court in 11 States to Protect Abortion
Access in Aftermath of Roe v. Wade Falling,”
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/reproductive-rights-
organizations-go-court-11-states-protect-abortion-access (last
visited Mar. 14, 2024) (“This week, following the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal
constitutional right to abortion, Planned Parenthood Federation of
America (PPFA), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center
for Reproductive Rights (CRR) took legal action to block abortion
bans in 11 states: Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. So far,
these efforts have successfully blocked abortion bans in five
states—Utah, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas—through

- 63 -
Tracker,” “[a]s of January 11, 2024, a total of 40 cases have been

filed challenging abortion bans in 23 states, of which 22 remain

pending at either the trial or appellate levels.” 20 In fact, Planned

Parenthood of Southwest Florida v. State of Florida, No. 2022-CA-

000912 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct.), 21 is one of the cases filed immediately

after Dobbs in which abortion proponents succeeded in obtaining a

temporary restraining order from a Florida trial court to keep a

fifteen-week abortion ban from going into effect.

All of this illustrates that the proposed amendment will not do

what the Sponsor and the title say it will do. Instead of limiting

government interference, it will ultimately encourage a great deal of

interference by the judicial branch. So, I must conclude the title is

misleading.

temporary restraining orders, allowing some providers there to
resume abortion care for now.”); Becky Sullivan, supra note 18
(“The legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and
counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in
violation of state constitutions.”).

20. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/state-court-abortion-litigation-tracker (last visited Mar. 14,
2024); see also supra note 19.

21. Review was granted by this Court in SC2022-1050.

- 64 -
 III. Conclusion

In sum, the Sponsor is required to tell the truth about the

purpose and scope of the proposed amendment and not mislead

voters; it has done neither.

For these reasons, I dissent.

SASSO, J., dissents with an opinion.

SASSO, J., dissenting.

After a sincere assessment of this case, I conclude that the

Sponsor’s cut-and-paste approach to preparing the ballot summary

fails to satisfy its legal obligation to provide an explanatory

statement of the proposal’s chief purpose. For that reason, and

with the utmost respect for the majority’s decision to the contrary, I

respectfully dissent.

I.

This case is somewhat unprecedented. Since this Court first

stepped into its role reviewing ballot summaries in the citizen

initiative context, we have not been presented with an amendment

quite like this. What makes the amendment unique is not its

controversial subject matter; this Court has considered

controversial amendments before. Instead, it is unique because of

- 65 -
the proposed amendment’s overwhelmingly vague and ambiguous

language and structure.

In essence, the Sponsor has submitted a proposal with no

readily discernable meaning, leaving it up to courts to determine

even its most essential legal effects over time. The challenge, then,

is to evaluate whether the summary meets the requirements of

section 101.161, Florida Statutes (2023), when we have said that in

doing so we evaluate “objective criteria inherent in the amendment

itself,” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Citizenship Requirement to Vote

in Fla. Elections, 288 So. 3d 524, 529 (2020) (quoting Fla. Dep’t of

State v. Fla. State Conf. of NAACP Branches, 43 So. 3d 662, 667

(Fla. 2010)), to determine whether or not the ballot title and

summary fairly inform the voter of the “true meaning, and

ramifications, of an amendment,” Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d

151, 156 (Fla. 1982). To answer this question, I will explain what

our precedent requires, 22 how that applies here, and why my

decision is consistent with our role.

22. Critical to my determination in this case—no one has
argued that our precedent is wrong. No one questions the
constitutionality of section 101.161, no one argues that the
requirements this Court has applied to ballot summaries do not

- 66 -
 II.

A.

When a sponsor submits a constitutional amendment to the

voters, section 101.161 imposes on the sponsor the obligation to

prepare a ballot summary of the proposed amendment.

§ 101.161(2), Fla. Stat. The requirements the sponsor must meet in

preparing the summary are delineated in section 101.161(1), which

provides:

Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public
measure is submitted to the vote of the people, a ballot
summary of such amendment or other public measure
shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on
the ballot after the list of candidates . . . . The ballot
summary of the amendment or other public measure
shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75
words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure.

Id. (emphases added).

From this text, our Court has derived a few requirements.

First, the statute requires an “explanatory statement” of the

flow from the statutory text, and no one argues that this Court
lacks the authority to prevent ballot summaries that fail to meet
those requirements from being submitted to the voters. And while
this Court’s precedent related to citizen initiatives has been
disjointed at best, because no one has argued that even one of this
Court’s decisions is clearly erroneous, I will do my best in this case
to follow the common thread those cases provide.

- 67 -
amendment’s chief purpose. That is something distinct from an

accurate replication of the proposed amendment. See, e.g.,

Wadhams v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Sarasota Cnty., 567 So. 2d

414, 416 (Fla. 1990).

Second, the ballot summary’s explanatory statement must be

clear and unambiguous. This means 1) the 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) (quoting Advisory

Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation

that Involves the Destruction of a Live Hum. Embryo, 959 So. 2d 210,

213-14 (Fla. 2007)).

And although the term “chief purpose” is undefined in the

statute, this Court has filled in the gaps. For decades, this Court

has described “chief purpose” to mean “the amendment’s chief

effect,” Askew, 421 So. 2d at 155, and even more specifically to

mean the “legal effect of the amendment,” Evans v. Firestone, 457

So. 2d 1351, 1355 (Fla. 1984); see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re

All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, &

Cabinet, 291 So. 3d 901, 913 (Fla. 2020) (Muñiz, J., dissenting)

- 68 -
(“[T]he ‘chief purpose’ of the amendment can be understood in

terms of the subset of those legal effects that would be material to a

reasonable voter.”).

In doing so, we have clarified that a sponsor “need not explain

every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment.” Advisory

Op. to Att’y Gen. re Amend. to Bar Gov’t from Treating People

Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 899 (Fla.

2000) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Pub. Funding

of Pol. Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1997)).

Even so, “drafters of proposed amendments cannot circumvent the

requirements of section 101.161, Florida Statutes, by cursorily

contending that the summary need not be exhaustive.” Id.; see also

Dep’t of State v. Fla. Greyhound Ass’n, 253 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla.

2018) (a ballot summary that fails to inform the voter of an

amendment’s “material effects” is defective).

Together, these requirements serve a greater purpose than

guaranteeing the sponsor fulfills technical rules. Section 101.161

ensures that “[t]he voter should not be misled and . . . [will] have an

opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on

which he is to cast his vote.” Wadhams, 567 So. 2d at 417

- 69 -
(omission in original) (quoting Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796, 798

(Fla. 1954)). In other words, to make an informed decision, the

voter must know the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an

amendment.” Askew, 421 So. 2d at 156.

B.

Giving effect to these requirements, this Court has never

hesitated to hold a sponsor to its statutory obligations. And this

has been true particularly when presented with ballot summaries

that contain vague and ambiguous language, even when that

language closely mirrors the underlying proposal.

For example, in Askew, a ballot summary closely followed the

text of a proposed amendment that would prohibit former state

officers from lobbying without disclosing financial interests. 421

So. 2d at 153. This Court still found the summary misleading

because it neglected to advise the public of an existing two-year

lobbying ban that did not require financial disclosures. Id. at 155.

We concluded that “[t]he problem, therefore, lies not with what the

summary says, but, rather, with what it does not say.” Id. at 156.

“[S]uch a change must stand on its own merits and not be

disguised as something else.” Id.

- 70 -
 And in Wadhams, similar to the Sponsor here, the

amendment’s proponents simply provided the text of the

amendment without a summary. 567 So. 2d at 415. The Court

held that a summary explaining the effects of the amendment was

necessary, concluding:

The problem with the ballot in the present case is
much the same as the problem with the ballot in Askew.
By containing the entire section as it would actually
appear subsequent to amendment, rather than a
summary of the amendment to the section, the ballot
arguably informed the voters that the Charter Review
Board would only be permitted to meet once every four
years. By failing to contain an explanatory statement of
the amendment, however, the ballot failed to inform the
public that there was presently no restriction on
meetings and that the chief purpose of the amendment
was to curtail the Charter Review Board’s right to meet.
Similar to the ballot summary at issue in Askew, the
present ballot “is deceptive, because although it contains
an absolutely true statement, it omits to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statement made not
misleading.”

Id. at 416 (quoting Askew, 421 So. 2d at 158 (Ehrlich, J.,

concurring)).

In similar fashion, in 2018 a majority of this Court concluded

that “it is not sufficient for a ballot summary to faithfully track the

text of a proposed amendment.” Detzner v. League of Women Voters

of Fla., 256 So. 3d 803, 811 (Fla. 2018). With that rule guiding its

- 71 -
analysis, this Court held that a ballot summary was defective for

failing to explain the phrase “established by” because that phrase

“is neither commonly nor consistently used” and therefore “cannot

be commonly understood by voters.” Id. at 809-10. Likewise, we

determined the ballot summary failed to explain the categories of

schools that would be affected by the proposal and therefore “voters

will simply not be able to understand the true meaning and

ramifications of the revision,” so “the ballot language [was] clearly

and conclusively defective.” Id. at 810.

This Court has also, at times, determined that ballot

summaries fail when specific terms are left undefined. See, e.g.,

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re People’s Prop. Rts. Amends. Providing

Comp. for Restricting Real Prop. Use May Cover Multiple Subjects,

699 So. 2d 1304, 1308-09 (Fla. 1997) (failure to define “owner,”

“common law nuisance,” and “in fairness” in the summary, even

though those terms were properly replicated from and also

undefined in the text of the proposed amendment, caused the

amendment to be stricken from ballot); Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.

2d at 899-900 (“[T]his Court has repeatedly held that ballot

summaries which do not adequately define terms, use inconsistent

- 72 -
terminology, fail to mention constitutional provisions that are

affected, and do not adequately describe the general operation of

the proposed amendment must be invalidated.”); Smith v. Am.

Airlines, Inc., 606 So. 2d 618, 621 (Fla. 1992) (observing the

statutory word limit “does not give drafters of proposed

amendments leave to ignore the importance of the ballot summary

and to provide an abbreviated, ambiguous statement in the hope

that this Court’s reluctance to remove issues from the ballot will

prevent us from insisting on clarity and meaningful information”).

Of course, I recognize this Court did not deem any of those

ballot summaries defective because they parroted language.

Instead, the best I can do to synthesize our cases is to conclude

that this Court has considered ballot summaries defective where,

despite parroting, the summary either misled by omission, failed to

explain the material ramifications of the amendment, or resulted in

a disconnect between the operative meaning of a term and a voter’s

understanding of it.

- 73 -
 III.

So, how do these principles apply here?

A.

The Sponsor argues that this Court’s cases referenced in

section II(B) are inapplicable because there is no ambiguity in the

amendment. It argues that the terms “viability,” “healthcare

provider,” and “patient’s health” all have clear meanings that are

obvious to voters. Similarly, the Sponsor argues that the comma

placed between “patient’s health” and “as determined by the

patient’s healthcare provider” means that the term “viability” used

earlier in the amendment is also modified by the phrase “as

determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” This too, says the

Sponsor, is clear and obvious to the voter because of common rules

of grammar.

The Sponsor is just plain wrong. None of those terms have

any sort of widely shared meaning, 23 nor do I think the comma

23. “Health” and “healthcare provider” have obviously broad
and undefined boundaries which are seemingly unlimited without
the benefit of a technical, legal analysis. As for “viability,” “[t]his
arbitrary line has not found much support among philosophers and
ethicists . . . . The most obvious problem with [relying on or
attempting to define viability] is that viability is heavily dependent

- 74 -
accomplishes what the Sponsor says it does.24 So if the ballot

summary is sufficient in this case, it is not for the reasons the

Sponsor has presented to this Court.

B.

The more difficult question is whether the ballot summary is

sufficient because it parrots the proposed amendment, which itself

is vague and ambiguous. In other words, is the Sponsor relieved of

its obligation to explain the legal effect of the proposed amendment

just because the amendment has no readily discernable meaning?

In my view, the answer is no. I agree with the majority that, at

on factors that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a
fetus.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 275-
76 (2022).

24. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The
Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), a treatise devoted to the
interpretation of legal text, identifies the application of the series
qualifier canon as “highly sensitive to context.” Id. at 150. This
sensitivity to context is exemplified in Justice Alito’s concurrence in
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), where he lays out
several examples of sentences that go against the canon. And so,
application of the series qualifier canon is not so straightforward
that all reasonable Florida voters will mechanistically apply this
arcane rule and discover that, “indeed, ‘as determined by the
patient’s healthcare provider’ also modifies ‘viability.’ ” See id. at
413 (Alito, J., concurring) (“No reasonable reader interprets texts
that way.”).

- 75 -
a very high level, the voters will understand that this amendment

creates a broad right to abortion in Florida. However, our precedent

has consistently required that the summary explain more than the

amendment’s general aim. Indeed, we have said that ballot

summaries must explain the “material legal effect,” so that the

electorate is advised of the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an

amendment” and is thereby “adequately informed.”

The summary here does none of this. Instead, it leaves the

legally operative terms that define the amendment’s scope

(“viability,” “health,” and “healthcare provider”) up in the air.

Likewise, the summary does not attempt to explain that the

amendment itself is similarly vague and ambiguous, nor do I believe

that this fact is self-evident from the vague and ambiguous nature

of the summary.

What we are left with, then, is a summary that does not

attempt to explain the amendment’s material legal effects and

employs terms that are neither consistently nor commonly

understood. As a result, I find it much more likely that this

summary will mislead voters into committing the same error the

Sponsor did in its briefing to this Court: they will carry their

- 76 -
personal conception of the amendment’s meaning into the voting

booth, operating under the assumption that their particular

interpretation is widely understood. Similarly, I find it highly

unlikely that voters will understand the true ramifications of this

amendment—that they will read the ballot summary and vote based

on an informed understanding and acceptance of the uncertainties

posed by its vague and ambiguous language.

For that reason, I believe this case better fits with those

decisions in which we concluded that ballot summaries were

defective, rather than those relied upon by the majority. See, e.g.,

Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d at 899 (concluding an undefined

term left “voters to guess at its meaning. . . . [V]oters would

undoubtedly rely on their own conceptions of what constitutes a

bona fide qualification,” and that the summary violated section

101.161); League of Women Voters, 256 So. 3d at 811; People’s

Prop. Rts. Amends., 699 So. 2d 1304; Askew, 421 So. 2d 151. 25

25. The closest cases cited by the majority to this one are
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Medical Liability
Claimant’s Compensation Amendment, 880 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2004),
and Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Florida Marriage
Protection Amendment, 926 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2006). I find Medical
Liability distinguishable because the chief purpose of the

- 77 -
And so, I conclude the Sponsor has failed to prepare a ballot

summary that meets the requirements of section 101.161 as

previously interpreted by this Court.

IV.

I will end by briefly touching upon one point in the majority

opinion. The majority argues that if we conclude the summary is

defective due to its vague and ambiguous nature, we may be

inadvertently imposing a substantive limitation on what types of

amendments can be proposed via the citizen initiative process.

While I do not think this concern is totally unfounded, I also think

the concern is more for the legislature than the judiciary.

Again, no one challenges the constitutionality of section

101.161, and no one challenges this Court’s precedent interpreting

it. If a sponsor cannot fulfill its statutory obligation because its

amendment was still communicated to the voter despite the
undefined term. I find Marriage Protection Amendment
distinguishable because the meaning of the undefined terms was
clear to the ordinary voter. Likewise, I do not think Advisory
Opinion to the Attorney General re Voter Control of Gambling, 215 So.
3d 1209 (Fla. 2017), provides helpful guidance because the
undisclosed ambiguous legal effect in that case was retroactivity—
not a legal effect that constituted a pillar of the amendment’s scope,
like viability, health, and healthcare provider here.

- 78 -
proposed amendment is too vague and ambiguous to explain, I

believe the statute places the burden of that bargain with the

sponsor—not the voters. See Smith, 606 So. 2d at 621 (“[T]he

burden of informing the public should not fall only on the press and

opponents of the measure—the ballot title and summary must do

this.” (quoting Askew, 421 So. 2d at 156)).

And that is what happened here. The Sponsor has made no

attempt to “explain” the material legal effects of the proposed ballot

amendment as required by section 101.161. Instead, the Sponsor

has punted, leaving the legal effect to be revealed by the eye of the

beholder. The Sponsor’s statutory obligation, as explained by this

Court’s precedent, demands more. As a result, I respectfully

dissent.

GROSSHANS and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor
General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor General,
Daniel W. Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Nathan A. Forrester,
Senior Deputy Solicitor General, John M. Guard, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, and James H. Percival, Chief of Staff, Office of the
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

- 79 -
Mathew D. Staver, Anita L. Staver, Horatio G. Mihet, and Hugh C.
Phillips of Liberty Counsel, Orlando, Florida,

for Interested Party, Florida Voters Against Extremism, PC

Stephen C. Emmanuel of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Interested Party, Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Inc.

Alan Lawson, Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Jason Gonzalez, and Caroline
May Poor of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Interested Party, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

Jeremy D. Bailie and R. Quincy Bird of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A.,
St. Petersburg, Florida,

for Interested Party, National Center for Life and Liberty

Quinn Yeargain of Widener University Commonwealth Law School,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Mark Dorosin of Florida A&M
University College of Law, Orlando, Florida,

for Interested Parties, Law Professors & Instructors

Joshua A. Rosenthal and Aadika Singh of Public Rights Project,
Oakland, California; and Matthew A. Goldberger of Matthew A.
Goldberger, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida,

for Interested Parties, Current and Former Florida Republican
Elected Officials

Kelly O’Keefe and Hannah Murphy of Stearns Weaver Miller
Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, and Abby
G. Corbett and Jenea E. Reed of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Miami, Florida; Stephen Petkis, Judy
Baho, Kendall J. Christie, and Aubrey Stoddard of Covington &
Burling LLP, Washington, District of Columbia; Isaac D. Chaput of

- 80 -
Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, California; and Vanessa J.
Lauber of Covington & Burling LLP, New York, New York,

for Interested Parties, Florida Doctors

Michelle Morton, Daniel B. Tilley, and Nicholas Warren of American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Miami, Florida; and
Courtney Brewer, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Interested Party, Floridians Protecting Freedom

Carrie Flaxman and Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward
Foundation, Washington, District of Columbia; and Sean Shaw of
Swope, Rodante P.A., Tampa, Florida,

for Interested Party, American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists

- 81 -