Department of State v. Florida Greyhound Ass’n, Inc.<\/em>, No. SC18-1287 (Fla. Sept. 7, 2018)<\/a>.\u00a0 The measure — Amendment 13 — would, if adopted, prohibit commercial dog racing in Florida by gaming or pari-mutuel operations in Florida and would prohibit wagering on dog races within Florida.\u00a0\u00a0 The Supreme Court ordered “that Amendment 13 appear on the ballot for the November 2018 general election” and ordered that “[n]o motion for rehearing will be allowed.”\u00a0 Slip op. at 21.<\/p>\nFrom an animal law perspective, the significance of the case arises chiefly from the Court’s discussion of the second sentence of the proposed new section to Article X of the Florida Constitution:\u00a0 “The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the\u00a0people of the State of\u00a0Florida.”\u00a0 \u00a0The ballot language itself does not inform voters of this provision, which had led the circuit court to conclude that the ballot language was clearly and conclusively defective.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at\u00a010.\u00a0\u00a0 The Supreme Court disagreed because the “fundamental value” language was merely prefatory, had no legal effect and\u00a0was therefore not required to be disclosed.<\/p>\nAs the Supreme Court explained:<\/p>\n
“Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision is devoid of any legislative or judicial mandate:\u00a0 it bestows no rights, imposes no duties, and does not empower <\/strong>the Legislature to take any action.\u00a0 … Irrespective of whether the [Constitution Revision Commission] intended Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision to have independent legal effect, it manifestly does not<\/strong>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\nId<\/em>. at 11 (emphasis added; citations omitted).\u00a0 The Court also rejected the argument based upon other existing provisions of the Florida Constitution — stating\u00a0that children’s education is a “fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida” and inhumane treatment of animals is “a concern of Florida citizens” — that\u00a0apparently\u00a0had\u00a0been disclosed in their respective ballot texts.\u00a0\u00a0 While these provisions had been disclosed “we have never held that they were required to do so.”\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 12.\u00a0 As the Court observed,<\/p>\n“Appellees cite no case actually interpreting the substance of either provision or applying them to adjudicate a party’s rights or duties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Id<\/em>.\u00a0 In particular, the Court’s own advisory opinion on the “inhumane treatment of animals” provision (which had addressed other issues) “did not discuss whether disclosure of the provision in question was necessary.”\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 See In re Advisory Op. to Atty. Gen. re Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy<\/em>, 815 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2002).\u00a0 Furthermore, regardless of the actual effect of the other two provisions and whether they contributed to the creation of a private cause of action,\u00a0“it is evident\u00a0that the fundamental value provision of Amendment 13 does not.”\u00a0 Slip op. at 13.\u00a0\u00a0 In summary,<\/p>\n“Because the fundamental value provision does not have any independent legal significance, we conclude it is prefatory and that its omission from the ballot summary does not render the ballot language clearly and conclusively defective.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Id.<\/em><\/p>\nIn a case like this, the only issue for the Court essentially is whether the ballot language gives the voters fair notice of the decision they must make.\u00a0 In a ballot language case, the wisdom of the measure itself is not a matter for the court’s review.\u00a0\u00a0 It is clear from this opinion, however, that even if Amendment 13 is approved by Florida voters, it will not have the effect of creating, as a matter of state constitutional law, some kind of\u00a0right to humane animal treatment that would impact other businesses in the state whose livelihoods depend upon animals or animal products in ways that may have nothing to do with greyhounds or greyhound racing.\u00a0 The Supreme Court has ruled that the measure does not\u00a0create any\u00a0rights or impose any duties\u00a0or\u00a0create a cause of action.\u00a0 As the\u00a0Court stressed, the “fundamental value” provision in Amendment 13\u00a0 “does not have any independent legal significance.”\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 13.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"by John M. Simpson. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed a\u00a0lower court decision that had\u00a0enjoined, from inclusion on the November\u00a02018 Florida ballot, a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution on the\u00a0ground that the ballot language was clearly and conclusively defective. \u00a0Department of State v. Florida Greyhound Ass’n, Inc., No. SC18-1287 (Fla. … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “Florida Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Greyhound Ballot Initiative”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[147,49,146,149,148,5],"ppma_author":[697],"class_list":["post-104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-amendment-13","tag-animal-law","tag-ballot-initiatve","tag-greyhound-racing","tag-greyhounds","tag-john-simpson"],"authors":[{"term_id":697,"user_id":317,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jmsimpson","display_name":"John M. Simpson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/simpsonjohn-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}