IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC

Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC IN RE: ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC04- L.T. Case No. 3D CITY OF MIAMI. Petitioner. vs. SIDNEY S. WELLMAN, ET AL.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

Supreme Court of Florida

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No.: 3D LATAM INVESTMENTS, LLC., a Florida Liability Company, vs.

The Honorable Bill Galvano, President, Florida Senate The Honorable Jose Oliva, Speaker, Florida House of Representatives Tallahassee, FL 32399

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: 08-1 THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Appellant/Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-947

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12- DEMARIOUS CALDWELL, Petitioner, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

In the Supreme Court of Florida

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER COURT NO.: 4D JACK LIEBMAN. Petitioner. vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. : SC MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR., Individually, Petitioner, -vs.-

02 FEB - I PH 4: 26 STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSI.Q~TATE Of FLORIDA FINAL ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D VINCENT MARGIOTTI. Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SCl3-1934

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.SC PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DERRICK GURLEY, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. Case No. SC th DCA Case No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA. The Honorable Judge Terri-Ann Miller, by and through undersigned

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SCO5-1150

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC. Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JEFFREY E. LEWIS, et al., Appellants, LEON COUNTY, et al., Appellees

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Cost Recovery Clause with Generating Performance Incentive FILED: September 13, 2006 Factor /

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-58 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Henry Diaz, SC Case No.: SC Petitioner, DCA Case No.: 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC FOREST RIVER, INC. Petitioner/Defendant, vs. JOSEPH GELINAS, Respondent/Plaintiff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE

FLORIDA VIRTUAL SCHOOL, et al.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC04- EDNA DE LA PENA, Petitioner, vs. SUNSHINE BOUQUET COMPANY and HORTICA, Respondents.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Second District Court of Appeal Case Number: 2D L.T. No. 05-CA Parrot Cove Marina, LLC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. CAK CHRISTOPHER J. SCHRADER, Appellant, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. (4th DCA Case No. 4D ) STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JESSIE HILL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

Florida Senate Bill No. SB 788 Ì230330_Î230330

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT, CITY OF LARGO, ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG,

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC PUTNAM COUNTY, Petitioner, JOHN EDMONDS and MARY EDMONDS., Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC Petition for review of District Court of Appeal Case No. 1D BEVERLY ROGERS, et al.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC12-1 THE FLORIDA SENATE S REPSONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED EXPERT AFFIDAVIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

In the Supreme Court of Florida

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Appellants/Petitioners, ) LOWER COURT CASE NO. APPELLANT S BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC06-85 ON REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE No.: SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC BRIAN MEATON

Amendment 1 Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption. Background This amendment was put on the ballot by the Florida Legislature by a vote in 2017.

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. To the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC CHRISTINE BAUER and THOMAS BAUER, Petitioners, ONE WEST BANK, FSB, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NO. SC L.T. NO. 3D MAURICE WHIPPLE, Petitioner. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC FIRST DISTRICT CASE NO. 1D L.T. CASE NO CA WENDY HABEGGER, Petitioner, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC CHARLES STRONG, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05- ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Petitioners,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: Lower Case No.: ID PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF. On Review from the District Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND RSKCO S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC L.T. No. DO LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner,

CITY OF MIAMI, PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT STATE OF COLORADO. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO COURT USE ONLY Case No. 2014SA151

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription:

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC 03-857 ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: AUTHORIZES MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY VOTERS TO APPROVE SLOT MACHINES IN PARIMUTUEL FACILITIES ANSWER BRIEF OF OPPONENTS AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, GREY2K USA, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NO CASINOS, INC. Mark Herron, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 0199737 Thomas M. Findley, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 0797855 Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 Telephone: (850) 222-0720 Facsimile: (850) 224-4539 Attorneys for Opponents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS...i TABLE OF CITATIONS... ii SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 1 ARGUMENT... 2 I. THE SLOT MACHINE INITIATIVE FAILS TO SATISFY THE SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT.... 2 II. THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY OF THE SLOT MACHINE AMENDMENT FAIL TO FAIRLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY DISCLOSE THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE i

AMENDMENT... 3 CONCLUSION... 5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE... 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 6 ii

TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Page No. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race in Public Education, 778 So.2d 888 (Fla. 2000)... 2,3 Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re People s Property Rights Amendments Providing Compensation for Restricting Real Property Use May Cover Multiple Subjects, 699 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1997)... 3 Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1994)... 3 Lee v. City of Miami, 121 Fla. 93, 163 So. 486 (1935)... 3 Florida Constitution Art. X, 7, Fla. Const....1,2 Art. XI, 3, Fla. Const.... 1 Proposed Legislation Fla. SB 64 (2003)... 3 iii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Opponents continue to urge this Court to strike the proposed initiative amendment entitled Authorizes Miami- Dade and Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities from the ballot. The proposed amendment violates Article XI, Section 3, Florida Constitution, because it contains two subjects. It authorizes the governing bodies in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to conduct a referendum in each county on the question of whether to authorize slot machines at existing pari-mutuel facilities and, by doing so, it amends the existing constitutional prohibition on lotteries contained in Article X, Section 7, Florida Constitution. The ballot summary, as does the amendment, fails to define the term slot machine. As a consequence, the summary fails to inform the voters of the scope of the amendment, its true meaning, and its ramifications. 1

ARGUMENT I. THE SLOT MACHINE INITIATIVE FAILS TO SATISFY THE SINGLE- SUBJECT REQUIREMENT Inherent in the argument of the proponents of the proposed amendment is the assumption that slot machines are a subject not otherwise addressed in the State Constitution. Proponents fail to acknowledge that slot machines are lotteries, otherwise prohibited under Article X, Section 7, Florida Constitution. The proposed amendment seeks to establish a procedure to authorize slot machine lotteries at existing pari-mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in derogation of the existing constitutional prohibition on lotteries. By so doing, the proposed amendment addresses two subjects. The absence of a reference to the existing constitutional provision, which is being amended by the initiative proposal, renders the proposed amendment constitutionally infirm. Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race, 778 So.2d 888, 894 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, it should be stricken from the ballot. 2

II. THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY OF THE SLOT MACHINE AMENDMENT FAIL TO FAIRLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY DISCLOSE THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The term slot machine is not defined in the proposed amendment. As a consequence, the voter is not informed of the scope of the amendment, its true meaning, and its ramifications. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1994). In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re People s Property Rights, 699 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1997), this Court held that the ballot summary was defective because, among other things, it failed to define the term common law nuisance, leaving voters unaware of what restrictions would be compensable under the proposed amendment. Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race, supra at 898. In the same way, the ballot summary fails to define the term slot machines, as does the text of the proposed amendment. Voters are not informed whether they are being asked to approve Pin-Games, Marble Tables, and similar 3

devices of this type as approved in Lee v. City of Miami, 121 Fla. 93, 163 So. 486 (1935) or video lottery type games as defined in SB 64 (2003 Regular Session). Without this type of information, the ballot title and summary are not clear and unambiguous as asserted by proponents of the amendment. Accordingly, the amendment should be stricken from the ballot. 4

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed amendment entitled Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward County Voters to Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities should be stricken from the ballot. Respectfully submitted on this 25 th day of August 2003 by: MARK HERRON Florida Bar No.: 0199737 THOMAS M. FINDLEY Florida Bar No.: 0797855 Messer, Caparello & Self. P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 Telephone: (850) 222-0720 Facsimile: (850) 224-4539 Attorneys for Opponents 5

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this Initial Brief has been prepared in Times New Roman 14 point-font in compliance with Rules 9.210(a)(2) and 9.100(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mark Herron 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Answer Brief has been forwarded by U.S. Mail to the following on this 25 th day of August 2003: 1. The Honorable Charles J. Crist Attorney General PL 01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 2. Stephen H. Grimes, Esquire Susan L. Kelsey, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, FL 32303-0810 3. John M. Hogan, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 015441 Miami, FL 33101 4. Ronald L. Book, Esquire Ronald L. Book, P.A. 2999 NE 191 st Street, PH 6 Aventura, FL 33180-3117 7

Mark Herron 8