ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: RAISING FLORIDA'S MINIMUM WAGE. ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: RAISING FLORIDA'S MINIMUM WAGE (FIS).
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
Original Proceedings - Advisory Opinion - Attorney General
Moody, Attorney General, and Edward M. Wenger, Chief Deputy
Solicitor General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, and
Christopher J. Baum, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee,
Florida, for Petitioner
Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for an
advisory opinion on the validity of a proposed citizen
initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution and the
corresponding financial impact statement prepared by the
Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). We have
jurisdiction to review the initiative petition. See
art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. As
explained below, we approve the proposed amendment titled
"Raising Florida's Minimum Wage" for placement
on the ballot but decline to review the financial impact
statement because we lack jurisdiction to do so.
required by law, the Attorney General requested an opinion
from this Court addressing the validity of an initiative
petition titled "Raising Florida's Minimum
Wage." Specifically, the Attorney General requested that
we review the compliance of the proposed amendment with the
single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the
Florida Constitution, and the compliance of the ballot title
and summary with the substantive and technical requirements
of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2018). In addition, the
Attorney General requested an opinion from this Court
addressing the compliance of the corresponding financial
impact statement with section 100.371, Florida Statutes
(2019). We invited briefing as to the validity of the
initiative petition and the financial impact statement but
received none. See art. IV, § 10; Fla. R. App.
P. 9.510(c)(1). Thereafter, we directed the Attorney General
and all interested parties to file briefs addressing whether
this Court has jurisdiction to review the financial impact
statement. We received only one brief, from the Attorney
General, which argues that we have jurisdiction.
people of Florida have the power to propose amendments to the
state constitution by initiative under article XI, section 3
of the Florida Constitution. Once an initiative petition is
circulated and meets certain technical requirements,
see § 15.21, Fla. Stat. (2019), the Attorney
General is constitutionally and statutorily required to seek
this Court's opinion on the validity of the petition.
Art. IV, § 10; § 16.061(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). The
constitution directs us to "address issues as provided
by general law" when the Attorney General invokes our
jurisdiction to review initiative petitions. Art. V, §
3(b)(10), Fla. Const.
the authority provided by article V, section 3(b)(10) of the
Florida Constitution, and as directed by article IV, section
10, we conduct a limited review of an initiative petition.
See Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Prohib. State
Spending for Experimentation that Involves Destruction of a
Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d 210, 212, 214 (Fla. 2007).
Our review does "not address the merits or wisdom of the
proposed amendment," but rather, the compliance of the
petition with the requirements of the Florida constitution
and statutes. Id. at 212. (quoting
Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Marriage Prot.
Amend., 926 So.2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 2006)).
regardless of whether we receive arguments on the validity of
an initiative petition, we review the petition to ensure the
following: (A) that the proposed amendment "embrace[s]
but one subject and matter directly connected therewith"
(except when the proposed amendment limits the power of
government to raise revenue), art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const.,
and (B) that the petition includes a ballot title and summary
in compliance with the word-count, clarity, and content
requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes. See
Prohib. State Spending for Experimentation that Involves
Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d at 211
first address the compliance of the proposed amendment with
the single-subject rule and compliance of the ballot title
and summary with section 101.161(1). Then, we turn to the
question of our jurisdiction to review financial impact
Court has held that, to comply with the single-subject rule,
the proposed amendment must "manifest a 'logical and
natural oneness of purpose'" and not
"substantially alter or perform the functions of
multiple branches" of government. Prohib. State
Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of
a Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d at 212-13 (emphasis
omitted) (first quoting Advisory Op. to the Att'y
Gen. re the Med. Liab. Claimant's Comp. Amend., 880
So.2d 675, 677 (Fla. 2004), and then quoting Advisory Op.
to the Att'y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife
Conserv. Comm'n, 705 So.2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla.
full text of the proposed amendment at issue, which would
amend article X, section 24 of the ...