ANDY FORD, ET AL. v. KURT BROWNING, ETC., ET AL.
CASE NO. SC08-1529

>> PLEASE RISE.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE.
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS
NOW IN SESSION.
ALL WITH CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW
NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION, AND YE
SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,
THIS GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA,
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING.
AND WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL
SESSION OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT.
WE HAVE TWO CASES ON THE DOCKET
INVOLVING PROPOSED BALLOT
AMENDMENTS.
ARE THE PARTIES READY TO
PROCEED?
WE CALL THE FIRST CASE OF FORD
v. BROWNING.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHIEF
JUSTICE.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT?
MY NAME IS RON MEYER.
I REPRESENT THE SEEK PETITIONER
SEEKING REVIEW LEON COUNTY
WHICH DECLINED TO REMOVE BALLOT
AMENDMENTS NUMBER 7 AND NUMBER
9 FROM THE NOVEMBER 4th GENERAL
ELECTION BALLOT.
WITH ME AT COUNSEL TABLE IS
BOB CHANIN AND JENNIFER BLOHM,
A PARTNER IN MY LAW OFFICE.
THE TAXATION AND BUDGET REFORM
COMMISSION WHICH I'M LIKELY TO
LAPSE INTO CALLING TBRC WAS
CREATED BY ARTICLE 11 SECTION 6
OF THE CONSTITUTION AS ONE OF
THE FIVE METHODS OF AMENDING
FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTION.
>> WELL, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION,
DO YOU AGREE THAT WHAT THIS
CASE COMES DOWN TO IS WHETHER
WE READ 11 SECTION 6D AND
SECTION 6E TOGETHER SO THAT
THE POWERS OF D INFORM THE
POWERS OF E TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS OR WHETHER THE
POWERS TO INVESTIGATE IN
SECTION D ARE TOTALLY SEPARATE
FROM THE POWERS TO, TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS IN SECTION E?
DOES IT COME DOWN TO THAT?
>> JUSTICE CANTERO, WHAT I
THINK IT COMES DOWN TO IS THE
TERMINOLOGY THAT'S USED IN
SECTION 6E, WHICH DEFINES WHAT
THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO
ACT IS.
AND THAT POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO ACT INCLUDES
WRITING A REPORT ON MATTERS
THAT IT FINDS THROUGH ITS
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS THAT IT'S
ENABLED TO CONDUCT IN
SUBSECTION E TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE FOR BUDGETARY LAWS
THAT PERHAPS WERE INFORMED BY
THE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY
SECTION 6D, AND WHAT'S RELEVANT
TO THIS CASE IS TO PROPOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN
THE LIMITED ARENAS GOING TO THE
EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN 6E OF A
REVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION
OR ANY PART OF IT DEALING WITH
TAXATION OR THE STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
NOW, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE
HAS ARGUED THAT AMENDMENT 7 AND
AMENDMENT 9 AFFECT OR, OR
RELATE TO TAXATION.
SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY LEFT TO IS
THOSE WORDS, STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS AND WHAT THEY MEAN.
NOW, SECTION 6D CERTAINLY
GIVES THE TBRC A BROAD RANGE OF
REVIEW POWERS.
IT'S TO EXAMINE THE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS, THE REVENUE
NEEDS AND EXPENDITURE PROCESSES
OF THE STATE.
IT'S TO REVIEW POLICIES.
IT'S TO DETERMINE METHODS
FAVORED BY CITIZENS.
>> SO, AND ONE OF THE POWERS IS
TO EXAMINE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON TAXATION AND
EXPENDITURES AT THE STATE AND
LOCAL LEVEL.
NOW, IF THEY HAVE THE POWER TO
EXAMINE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS, BUT THEY DON'T
HAVE THE POWER TO PROPOSE ANY
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THOSE
LIMITATIONS, THEN WHAT'S THE
PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THEM?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THERE
ARE SEVERAL PURPOSES OF
EXAMINING THEM.
THE FIRST PURPOSE IS THE
BEGINNING PART OF SECTION 6E,
WHICH SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION
SHALL ISSUE A REPORT INFORMING
THE PUBLIC, INFORMING THE
LEGISLATURE, INFORMING ANYONE
WHO'S INTERESTED OF THE NEEDS
OF THE STATE IN THOSE REGARDS.
IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR A STATE TO
HAVE A TAX AND BUDGET STUDY
COMMISSION WITH NO POWER TO
ACT.
INDEED, AS THE RESPONDENTS IN
THIS CASE HAVE POINTED OUT,
THEY HAVE ISSUED A 100-PAGE
REPORT DEALING WITH EDUCATION
POLICY WHICH IF INDEED IT
RAISES ISSUES THAT ARE
IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF
FLORIDA THROUGH THE INITIATIVE
PROCESS, THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THROUGH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
PROCESS, WHICH DOES HAVE
PLENARY AUTHORITY, THEY CAN
CERTAINLY ADDRESS THOSE
BUDGETARY PROCESS NEEDS.
SECONDLY, THE LIMITATION ON
TAXATION, WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT
HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR SET OF
AMENDMENTS, CERTAINLY DOES,
THERE'S NO LIMITATION IN 6E ON
THE LEVEL OF TAXATION THAT THIS
COMMISSION COULD PROPOSE.
FOR EXAMPLE, AMENDMENT 8 WHICH
IS ALSO NOT BEFORE THE COURT
BUT IS ON THE NOVEMBER 4th
BALLOT.
>> WHAT WE ARE REALLY DEALING
WITH IN A VERY NARROW SENSE,
WHAT THE TERM "STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS" MEANS IN 6E, AND I
THOUGHT, AND I'M GOING TO, YOU
KNOW, ASK THE RESPONDENTS TO
ADDRESS THIS, I BELIEVE, WHAT
ARE YOU CALLED?
IS THAT IT SEEMED TO ME THAT,
AND MAYBE YOU WANT TO ADDRESS
IT A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE MORE
DETAIL, THAT BY USING STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS AT THE
BEGINNING OF 6D BUT ALSO
TALKING ABOUT REVENUE NEEDS,
EXPENDITURE PROCESSES,
GOVERNMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY, AND
ALSO TAXATION, AND THEN IN 6E
ONLY RELATING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
BUDGETARY PROCESS AND TAXATION,
THAT READING THEM TOGETHER
ACTUALLY TO ME MAKES IT SOUND
LIKE BUDGETARY PROCESS HAS TO
BE NARROWER -- MORE NARROW THAN
JUST EVERYTHING IN 6E, AND SO
IT MAYBE IS THAT A PLAIN
LANGUAGE?
IS THAT READING IT TOGETHER?
CONSTITUTION CONSTRUCTION HERE,
WHAT WOULD YOU, WHAT PRINCIPLES
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WE SHOULD
APPLY?
>> JUSTICE, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE
OF 6E INFORMS US RELEVANT TO 7
AND 9.
ARE WE DEALING WITH A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL THAT
DEALS WITH THE STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
IF YOU READ 6D TO DEFINE THAT
PROCESS, EXPAND IT LIKE THE
RESPONDENTS WISH TO, THEN
YOU'VE REALLY JUST WRITTEN OUT
OF THE CONSTITUTION THE LIMITED
AUTHORITY IN 6E TO PROPOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL --
>> YOU WOULDN'T NEED TAXATION,
WOULD YOU?
YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE TERM
TAXATION.
>> YOU WOULDN'T NEED ANY OF IT,
YOU WOULD SIMPLY SAY THE
COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO
FORWARD ANY AMENDMENT THAT
DEALS WITH THE ISSUES IN 6D AND
THEN WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS MADE
THIS COMMISSION THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
COMMISSION, WHICH DOES HAVE
PLENARY AUTHORITY --
>> UNDER YOUR VIEW OF THIS
RESTRICTION, ON PLACING
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES ON
THE BALLOT, CAN THERE BE BY
THIS COMMISSION A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE WILL
BE A 1% SALES TAX, THAT IS, AND
THE EXPENDITURE BE LIMITED TO
CAPITAL OUTLAY AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL?
>> YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU'RE
JUMPING FROM STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS THEN TO PROPOSAL
TAXATION.
I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.
>> OKAY.
BUT ISN'T THAT A HYBRID
SITUATION IN WHICH YOU, YOU DO
HAVE IN THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
INITIATIVE A LIMITATION ON WHAT
THE REVENUE IS GOING TO BE
SPENT FOR, IN OTHER WORDS, A
LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS,
THESE AMENDMENTS DOES.
WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS -- YOU
KNOW, WHETHER THE TBRC COULD
HAVE PROPOSED A SPECIAL 1%
SALES TAX EARMARKED TO PROVIDE
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR STUDENTS TO
ATTEND NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS,
PERHAPS THEY WOULD UNDER THEIR
TAXATION AUTHORITY HAVE THAT
ABILITY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT
THEY DID.
AND IF THEY HAD DONE THAT,
PARENTHETICALLY I WOULD ADD
THEY WOULD PROBABLY RUN INTO
COLLISIONS THAT THIS COURT
FOUND IN BUSH v. HOLMES.
HAS THIS COMMISSION IN THE PAST
PUT ON THE BALLOT AND ADOPTED
INITIATIVE THAT DO JUST THAT,
THAT HAVE A HYBRID SITUATION OF
RAISING REVENUE AND LIMITING
WHAT THE EXPENDITURE OF THAT
REVENUE IS FOR?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD
DESCRIBE IT AS A HYBRID
PROPOSAL.
I THINK AMENDMENT 8 IS SUCH A
PROPOSAL WHERE THEY HAVE
PROPOSED A LOCAL OPTION SALES
TAX TO BE LEVIED TO SUPPORT
COMMUNITY COLLEGES THROUGH THE
STATE AND ONLY TO BE USED FOR
THAT, SO IF PEOPLE IN A LOCAL
COMMUNITY ELECT TO TAX
THEMSELVES MORE HEAVILY AND
RAISE THE PENNY SALES TAX TO
PAY FOR THEIR COMMUNITY
COLLEGES IN THEIR AREA, THEY
COULD DO SO.
BUT THEY COULDN'T USE IT FOR
OTHER REASONS.
BUT THAT'S ON THE TAXATION
SIDE.
THAT, THAT, THAT REALLY DOESN'T
AFFECT THE STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
>> WELL, LET'S GET BACK TO THE
BUDGETARY SIDE.
BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONE OF YOUR
ARGUMENTS IS THAT UNDER ARTICLE
3 SECTION 19, WHICH IS ANOTHER
SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT USES THE WORD BUDGET AND
PROCESS, IS, DOES THAT HELP
YOUR ARGUMENT AT ALL IN HELPING
TO NARROW THE SCOPE OR DEFINE
THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE BUDGETING
PROCESS IS?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE QUINCE, I
THINK IT DOES EXACTLY THAT.
I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT
WHAT A STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS
IS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT
WHAT WAS PROPOSAL 4 OR VOTED
FAVORABLY BY THE PEOPLE
STEMMING FROM A TBRC PROPOSAL
IN 1992, WHICH LAYS OUT THE
ANNUAL BUDGETS PROCESS, THE
APPROPRIATION BILLS, FORMAT,
THE APPROPRIATIONS REVIEW
PROCESS, THE PUBLIC REVIEW,
IT'S A PROCESS --
>> SO YOU ARE SAYING IT'S
LIMITED BASICALLY TO THE HOW,
WHEN, AND WHERE AND NOT THE
SPECIFICS OF THE BUDGET?
>> CORRECT.
BECAUSE IT'S THE LEGISLATURE
THAT MAKES APPROPRIATION
DETERMINATIONS.
WHAT THE, THE CONSTITUTION DOES
IS IT SETS THE PROCESS BY WHICH
THE LEGISLATURE MAKES THOSE
KINDS OF DETERMINATIONS.
IF YOU READ THAT SECTION 6D IN
THE MANNER THAT THE RESPONDENTS
DO TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF 6E,
TO ALLOW IT TO BE ANYTHING AS
THE TRIAL COURT NOTED THAT
TOUCHES UPON AN EXPENDITURE,
THAT, YOU KNOW, IN ANY WAY
AFFECTS AN EXPENDITURE OR A
STATE BUDGET, YOU WOULD HAVE
READ INTO OBLIVION THE
LIMITATION THAT THE PEOPLE PUT
IN 6E.
THE, THE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REVISION COMMISSION HAS THAT
POWER BUT THE STATE TAXATION
AND BUDGET REFORM COMMISSION
HAS TO BE MORE NARROW BECAUSE
THE PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT'S STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS.
>> WELL, LET'S LOOK AT STATE
BALLOT 7 AND 9 BECAUSE YOU HAVE
GOT THESE TWO VERY CLEAR THINGS
THAT WERE BEING DONE BY BALLOT
7 IS TO OVERRULE HOLMES 1 FROM
THE FIRST DISTRICT AND BALLOT 9
TO OVERRULE THIS COURT'S
OPINION ON SCHOOL VOUCHERS BUT
IN BALLOT 9, THEY ALSO HAVE THE
75% -- 65% REQUIREMENT AND I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU, IF
THE ONLY THING THAT HAD BEEN
DONE IN BALLOT 9 WAS TO SAY,
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I KNOW WAY
BACK THERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT TO
SAY 65% OR 75% OF THE STATE
BUDGET SHALL BE SPENT ON
EDUCATION.
>> RIGHT.
>> COULD THAT BE CONSTRUED TO
BE PART OF --, JUST, YOU KNOW,
AGAIN TO SEE WHETHER THIS IS
JUST ABOUT PROCESS OR, OR
THEY'VE ARGUED YOU'RE SAYING
IT'S, YOU'VE MADE IT SO NARROW
THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE
PROCEDURE.
COULD DOLLAR BE UNDER THE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS SOME MANDATE
TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT
STATEWIDE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE
IS SPENT ON EDUCATION OF THE
ENTIRE BUDGET.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO FOR TWO
REASONS.
ONE IS YOU GOT TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
IS THIS IS A STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS AND WHILE WE MAY DEBATE
WHAT BUDGETARY PROCESS IS,
THERE'S NO MISTAKE ABOUT WHAT
MISTAKE S. WHAT THE 65%
PROPOSAL IN AMENDMENT 9 DOES IS
IT SIMPLY TELLS LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS THIS IS HOW YOU'VE
GOT TO SPEND YOUR MONEY.
>> NO, I'M NOT ASKING THIS.
I'M GOING A STEP BEYOND TO SEE
WHETHER THIS, THERE'S ANYTHING
SUBSTANTIVE IN STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
COULD THEY HAVE PROPOSED
SOMETHING UNDER STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
STATE TO ALLOCATE A, REMEMBER,
THERE WAS SOME AMENDMENT WAY
BACK --
>> WELL --
>> THAT REQUIRED THAT AND WE
STRUCK IT ON A SINGLE, I THINK
SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION.
IT WAS --
>> THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE
INDEED.
THE RESTORE EDUCATION SHARE
AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE
EARMARKED A PERCENTAGE OF
GENERAL REVENUE.
>> RIGHT.
>> FOR --
>> SO COULD THAT BE DONE?
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING, UNDER
THE DEFINITION OF, OR YOUR
DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE URGING
US TO FOLLOW STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS, COULD THAT TYPE OF, OF
LIMITATION OR DIRECTIVE TO THE
LEGISLATURE BE PROPOSED?
BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE
TAXATION.
THAT WOULD --
>> WELL, IT MAY BE TAXATION.
BECAUSE IT MAY BE EARMARKING A
TAX REVENUE STREAM --
>> BUT I'M JUST -- THE MANDATE
IS ON, THERE JUST LIKE THE
CITIZENS' INITIATIVE WAS THE
LEGISLATURE SHALL ALLOCATE THIS
PERCENTAGE FOR EDUCATION OF ITS
GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET.
>> THAT COMES CLOSER TO STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS --
>> BECAUSE WE WERE THINKING
THIS COURT THAT KEEPS ON
GETTING, YOU KNOW, A LESSER AND
LESSER SHARE OF THE BUDGET,
THAT WE WERE HOPING THEY'D COME
OUT WITH SOMETHING AND SAY THAT
THE, JUDICIAL SYSTEM SHALL
RECEIVE NO LESS THAN 1% OF THE
GENERAL REVENUE SO THAT WAS
SORT OF A SELFISH QUESTION ON
MY PART TO ASK WHETHER
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD'VE
BEEN WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY.
>> CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATURE
COULD PROPOSE A, A, AN
AMENDMENT SUCH AT THAT.
THE CRC COULD PROPOSE SUCH AN
AMENDMENT BUT AGAIN I THINK IF
YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ANY
MEANING TO THE LANGUAGE THAT
WAS CHOSEN FOR 6E, YOU HAVE
GOT TO GIVE THE LANGUAGE THAT
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS IS THE
STRUCTURE THE PROCESS BY WHICH
THE --
>> LET ME FOLLOW UP ON JUSTICE
PARIENTE'S QUESTION.
AREN'T THERE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
AND SHE'S POSITED ONE EXAMPLE
FOR INSTANCE WHERE YOU ARE
DEVOTING SUCH A LARGE PART OR
REALLY ANY PART OF, OF THE
STATE BUDGET TO A PARTICULAR
SUBJECT MATTER.
THAT THE STATE HAS TO FUND.
AREN'T THERE SOME PROVISIONS
LIKE THAT THAT WOULD BE SO
SIGNIFICANT THAT THEY WOULD
IMPACT THE BUDGET PROCESS?
IF, IF, IF THE IF THE
LEGISLATURE STARTS OFF WITH A
PROVISION LIKE THAT, IN ESSENCE
THEY'RE STARTING OFF WITH ONE
HAND TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK.
WHEN THEY APPROACH THE BUDGET
PROCESS.
LET ME ASK THE REVERSE REALLY
OF WHAT, OF WHAT JUSTICE
PARIENTE ASKED AND THAT IS IF
THERE WAS SUCH A PROVISION,
ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THE BUDGET COMMISSION PUT ON
THE BALLOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REMOVE
SUCH A RESTRICTION BECAUSE THEY
SEE THIS AS BEING SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTION ON THE
BUDGET PROCESS THAT, THEY AT
THE SAME POINT TO FREE UP --
THAT THEY WANT TO FREE UP THE
LEGISLATURE AND IT'S PROCESS
FROM HAVING THAT SIGNIFICANT A
RESTRICTION.
>> JUSTICE ANSTEAD, THAT'S PART
OF THE ARGUMENT I THINK THAT
THE RESPONDENTS MAKE HERE, AND
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS
THE STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF 6E.
I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU FOCUS
BACK ON AMENDMENT 7 FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE ADDED A
COMPONENT LANGUAGE.
AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY MAY NOT
BE BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING IN
A PUBLIC PROGRAM BECAUSE OF
RELIGION.
NOW THAT MAY BE A FEEL-GOOD
KIND OF THING, BUT IT HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
TAXATION OR THE STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
IF PRIVATE PROVIDERS, RELIGIOUS
PROVIDERS ARE PARTICIPATING IT
MAY TOUCH UPON EXPENDITURES BUT
THAT'S NOT TOUCHING UPON THE
BUDGETARY PROCESS.
WHAT DOES AMENDMENT 7 IN THAT
LANGUAGE HAVE TO DO WITH EITHER
TAXATION OR A STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
THE ANSWER IS NOTHING.
THE SAME GOES -- THE SAME IS
TRUE FOR BALLOT AMENDMENT 9.
TELLING THE LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT THAT WHATEVER THE
STATE DECIDES TO FUND, WHATEVER
LEVEL THE STATE DECIDES TO FUND
EDUCATION AT, HERE'S YOUR,
HERE'S YOUR PIECE OF THE
BUDGET.
YOU SHALL SPEND IT THIS WAY.
DOESN'T CHANGE ONE WIT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THE STATE
APPROPRIATED, DOESN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING ABOUT THE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS, IT SIMPLY
SAYS THIS IS HOW YOU'VE GOT TO
SPEND THE MONEY WE GIVE YOU.
>> THE PROVISION, OVER HERE,
I'M SORRY.
>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
>> IF WE READ THE PROVISION AS
YOU ARGUE, THEN IT'S REALLY A
VERY NARROW AUTHORITY THAT THIS
COMMISSION HAS AND THEN THE
QUESTION BECOMES WHY WOULD THE
PEOPLE ADOPT A CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION CREATING A
COMMISSION WITH SUCH NARROW
AUTHORITY TO MEET EVERY 20
YEARS BUT ONLY BE ABLE TO TOUCH
UPON A, A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF
WHAT GOES ON IN THE STATE?
WHY NOT JUST SAY LET THE
CONSTITUTION REVISION
COMMISSION DEAL WITH, WITH THIS
OTHER 1%?
>> WELL, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW,
SOME SENTIMENT TO DO JUST THAT
WHEN, WHEN THE POWER OF
TAXATION AND STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS WAS GIVEN BACK TO THE
CRC, IF YOU'LL RECALL WHEN THE
TBRC WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED
THAT WAS STRUCK FROM THE CRC
AND THEN IN 1990 THE CRC PUT
IT BACK.
I THINK YOU ARE READING 6D
AND 6E, TOO NARROWLY.
>> I'M JUST ASKING YOU IF WE
READ IT THE WAY YOU WANT, WHY
HAVE THIS COMMISSION AT ALL?
>> BECAUSE --, I DON'T KNOW
THAT I CAN ANSWER WHY HAVE THE
COMMISSION AT ALL OTHER THAN
THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMISSION
AS STATED BY THE PROPONENTS OF
IT WAS TO TAKE A SPECIFIC LOOK
AT THE FISCAL AND TAXATION
NEEDS OF THE STATE, TO WRITE A
REPORT, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PUBLIC, TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE, AND IN A LIMITED
SCOPE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS
DIRECTLY TO THE BALLOT THAT
DEAL WITH TAXATION AND STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESSES.
>> BUT THOSE COULD BE HUGE.
I MEAN, AGAIN, WHEN WE GET INTO
TAXATION AND THEY WERE LOOKING,
THIS WAS RIGHT AFTER THE FAILED
SERVICE TAXES.
THEY WERE LOOKING TO SEE
WHETHER WE COULD FIGURE OUT IN
THIS STATE WHERE SOURCES OF
INCOME WERE GOING TO COME FROM
AND TAX REFORM.
I MEAN, THE TAXATION PART TO ME
WAS REALLY THE HUGE PART.
>> AND I THINK, YOU KNOW --
>> I MEAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH
THAT?
>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT
AND THAT'S WHERE THE HUGE POWER
OF THE TAXATION AND BUDGET
REFORM COMMISSION REPOSES ON
PROPOSING TAXES.
AND INSTEAD OF DOING THAT,
INSTEAD OF USING THIS POWER IN
A MANNER THAT FACILITATES SOME
CREATIVITY AND SOME ADDRESSING
THE STATE'S NEEDS, THIS
COMMISSION INSTEAD DECIDED TO
VENTURE OFF INTO EDUCATIONAL
AND -- POLICY AND
PROPOSED BALLOT AMENDMENT 7 AND
9.
WHICH SHOULD BE STRUCK.
>> YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR
REBUTTAL TIME BUT I'M SURE WE
WILL GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES FOR
REBUTTAL.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHIEF JUSTICE
QUINCE.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
SCOTT MAKAR ON BEHALF OF
KURT BROWNING, SECRETARY OF
STATE.
ALONG WITH ME ARE THE
INTERVENING ATTORNEYS.
>> MR.^MAKAR, LET ME GET RIGHT
TO MY CONCERN.
>> SURE.
>> HERE AND THAT IS THAT I KNOW
IN YOUR BRIEF THAT YOU, YOU,
YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT.
IT WOULD BE ODD TO ACCEPT
PETITIONER'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE TERM STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN
UNABLE TO DEFINE IT IN ANY
MEANINGFUL WORKABLE WAY.
THE PHRASE DOES NOT APPEAR IN
THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, THE
FLORIDA STATUTES, OR FLORIDA
CASE LAW EXCEPT OTHER THAN IN
SECTION 6.
HOWEVER, EXPLAIN TO ME THIS:^IN
KEEPING IN MIND THAT STATEMENT,
THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN
SECTION 6 OF ARTICLE 11 IS A
PROVISION WHICH SAYS THAT THE,
THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE A
REPORT, WHICH WILL GO TO THE
LEGISLATURE AS TO BUDGET LAWS.
WHEREAS IN RESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE, THE
COMMISSION SHALL MAKE -- CAN
SET OUT INITIATIVES THAT HAVE
TO DO WITH A STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS AND THEN IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 19, CONTRARY TO WHAT
YOUR BRIEF SAYS, THERE IS A
WHOLE SECTION THAT DELINEATES
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS, AND WE
ALSO HAVE END SECTION 215 OF
THE FLORIDA STATUTE A WHOLE
CHAPTER ON THE STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
SO I, I ASK YOU, ISN'T REALLY
THIS, THIS INITIATIVE PROCESS
SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO WHAT
YOU COULD CHANGE IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 19 OR WHAT YOU COULD
CHANGE IN CHAPTER 216 AND THAT
IN FACT THE STATUTES AND THE
CONSTITUTION BOTH CONTAIN
REFERENCES TO THE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS?
>> WELL, ACTUALLY, JUSTICE
WELLS, IF YOU PUT THE PHRASE IN
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS, YOU
WILL FIND IT ONLY TWO PLACES.
6D AND 6E, THAT'S IT.
WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS
STATE BUDGETING PROCESS OR
STATE PROCEDURES.
>> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE STATE BUDGETING
PROCESS AND BUDGETARY PROCESS?
>> WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY THE KEY
OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS THE
PHRASE STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS
IS A UNIQUE PHRASE IT'S ONLY IN
CHARGE OF AUTHORITY TO THIS
COMMISSION AND THE QUESTION IS
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
WELL LET ME GIVE THE NARROW
CONTRADICTED WORKABLE VIEW FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE THE PETITIONERS
HAVE GIVEN IT OR WILL IT BE
GIVEN THE BROADER VIEW OF, OF
WHAT THE COMMISSION --
>> IS IT A REAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN BUDGETING PROCESS AND
BUDGETARY?
ISN'T I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT I'M
HAVING STRUGGLE WITH, MR.^MAKAR
S THAT, I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT
THAT WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH
IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESS AND
THE BUDGETING PROCESS IS A
SYSTEM THAT WE GO THROUGH EVERY
YEAR IN PUTTING TOGETHER THE
BUDGET.
AND THAT WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE --
WE HAVE AN ANNUAL BUDGET.
WE HAVE AN, AN APPROPRIATIONS
BILL FORMAT.
WE HAVE TO SEND OVER TO THE
LEGISLATURE IN TIME FOR THEM TO
PUT TOGETHER AND MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
PUT TOGETHER THE BUDGET.
AND THEN IT HAS TO BE, THERE
HAS TO GO A REVIEW PROCESS AND
THERE'S A 72-HOUR REVIEW.
ALL OF THOSE LOOK TO ME LIKE
THAT'S THE PROCESS.
>> WELL, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
-- I'M SORRY.
I WOULD SAY THAT'S PROCEDURE.
CERTAINLY THAT'S A SUBSET OF
PROCESS.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
IF THIS WAS A JUDICIAL REFORM
COMMISSION, IT WAS CHARGED AT
LOOK AT THE BEGINNING STATE
JUDICIAL PROCESS, WOULD ANYONE
HERE BE THINKING THAT STAT
STATE JUDICIAL REFORM
COMMISSION WOULD BE LIMITED TO
CHANGING THE RULE OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE --
>> BUT, AREN'T WE --, AND
AGAIN, YOU SAY IT WASN'T
DEFINED ANYWHERE, AND THEY SAY,
YEAH, IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH THAT IT
IS REFERENCED OTHER PLACES SO
IT HAS A MEANING.
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS.
THIS IS MY, THESE ARE, WELL,
THERE'S SEVERAL CONCERNS I HAVE
BECAUSE I STARTED OUTS, I MEAN,
I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT
THIS WAS A BROAD COMMISSION.
I REALLY, I WAS UNINFORMED AND
THE BRIEFS REALLY BOTH SIDES
WERE VERY HELPFUL TO ME IN
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
BUT WHAT I DO IS I GO BACK TO,
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH PLAIN
LANGUAGE AND TEXTUALLY.
IF 6D IS SAYING THAT THE
AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE, IT STARTS
WITH STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS,
AND THEN IT SAYS REVENUE NEEDS
AND EXPENDITURE PROCESSES, THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TAX
STRUCTURE, SO STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS, WHATEVER IT IS, IT WAS
JUST ONE LITTLE DISCREET PART
OF 6D.
THEN YOU GET TO 6E, AND IT SAYS
THEY CAN PROPOSE ANY
RECOMMENDED STATUTES RELATING
TO THE TAXATION OR BUDGETARY
LAWS.
SO YOU'RE THINKING WELL, THEIR
POWER TO PROPOSE MAYBE WAS TO
BE BROADER.
AND THEN IT GOES BUT THEIR
REVISION TO THE CONSTITUTION
ONLY DEALS WITH TAXATION, WHICH
NO ONE'S ARGUING THIS IS
TAXATION, OR THE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'D ASK YOU, IF
WE WERE REALLY JUST DOING, THIS
WAS JUST A STATUTE, WE READ
THEM TOGETHER AND WE SAY, WELL,
THEY MUST HAVE MEANT IT TO BE
NARROWER THAN EVERYTHING IN --
OTHERWISE THE WAY THE AMICI ARE
DEFINING IT YOU WOULD NOT NEED
ANYTHING OTHER TO SAY, AND THEY
HAVE, YOU PUT IN 6E, THEY HAVE
A POWER TO PROPOSE ANYTHING IN
6D.
HOW CAN YOU KNOW IN THE WAY WE
INTERPRET STATUTES AND YOU SAY
WE DO PARALLEL STATUTES, HOW
CAN YOU SAY THAT THE, WHOEVER
DRAFTED THIS DIDN'T INTEND FOR
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS TO BE
NARROWER -- I DON'T KNOW WHY
I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT
WORD.
MORE NARROW THAN THE ENTIRE
STATE EXPENDITURES?
AND EVERYTHING FROM THE BULLET
TRAIN TO, I'M SURE THEY COULD
FIND SOMETHING WITH PREGNANT
PIGS AND EVERY OTHER CITIZENS'
INITIATIVE WOULD BE ENCOMPASSED
WITH WHAT THIS COMMISSION
COULD'VE PROPOSED?
>> WELL, JUSTICE PARIENTE, I
BELIEVE THE PROPER STRUCTURE TO
ANALYZE THIS CASE IS, IS TO SAY
WHAT DOES STATE BUDGETARY
PROCESS ME MEAN?
IS IT NARROW OR BROAD.
>> CAN'T YOU ANSWER THAT
QUESTION WITHIN 6D AND E
WHETHER THEY USE STATE
BUDGETARY PROCESS AS ONLY ONE
DISCREET WORD AND THE WAY YOU
AND THE AMICUS ARE ARGUING, IT
WOULD SWALLOW UP EVEN TAXATION.
YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED THE WORD
TAXATION BECAUSE THEY SAY IT'S
TO DO WITH HOW THE STATE RAISES
REVENUE, HOW MUCH REVENUE IS
RAISED, HOW THE MONEYS ARE
SPENT.
YOU WOULD NOT EVEN NEED
TAXATION THERE.
>> THERE ARE AT LEAST FIVE
REASONS WE SPELLED THEM OUT IN
THE BRIEF.
LET ME HIGHLIGHT THEM VERY
QUICKLY.
THIS COMMISSION LOOKS AT
PROCESS.
BROAD REMEDIAL REFORM.
THE STRUCTURE AND LANGUAGE.
>> LET'S SHOW, I'M SORRY, I
MISSED WHAT YOU SAID.
>> THE PURPOSE --, THIS
COMMISSION.
>> YOU SAID IT'S TO BE BROAD
AND REMEDIAL AND WHERE DO YOU
READ THAT.
>> OUT OF THE HISTORY OF THE
TBRC.
IN FACT THE COMMISSION WAS SO
BROAD THAT THE CRC WAS
CONCERNED.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SMALL 1% OF THE CIRCLE HERE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG AREA
OF REFORM THAT THIS TBRC CAN
LOOK AT AND TO ACCEPT THIS
SIDE'S --
>> I'M SORRY, I GUESS I'M
ASKING YOU, YOU CAN GIVE YOUR
FIVE REASONS I AM ASKING YOU
FROM A PLAIN LANGUAGE AND
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
VIEWPOINT WHY THE POWER TO
PROPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS AS OPPOSED TO REPORT
TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THE STATE
OF FISCAL STATE WHERE WE ARE IN
-- WE NEED REVENUE AND WHY THAT
WASN'T WHAT THE FOCUS WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY 20 YEARS?
WHY WITHIN THE TEXT CAN'T YOU
-- CAN YOU TELL ME THAT THERE
IS NOTHING YOU CAN SAY TO
REFUTE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE
USED IT NARROWLY.
>> I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THIS
IS ALL ABOUT TAXATION.
THERE'S TWO SIDES.
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, TO
FOCUS ON REVENUES THROUGH
TAXATION IS TO
TRUNCATE THIS COMMISSION AND
GIVE IT NO -- AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE,
WHAT I AM SUGGESTING TO THIS
COURT IS YOU HAVE GOT A PHRASE
HERE, AND LET'S ASSUME IT'S
AMBIGUOUS, IT'S UNCLEAR EXACTLY
WHAT IT MEANS WE THINK THE
TBRC'S OWN RULE IS --
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT
THAT.
WHAT DOES THE WORD MANNER MEAN
IN THAT -- WHERE IT SAYS THE
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS MEANS
THE MANNER IN WHICH EVERY LEVEL
OF GOVERNMENT -- ISN'T THAT,
ISN'T THE WORD MANNER THERE IN
THE NATURE OF THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH IT GOES ABOUT SETTING UP
ITS BUDGET?
>> WELL, I THINK THE MANNER --
THE SAYS THE MANNER IN WHICH
EVERY LEVEL IN THE GOVERNMENT
-- I THINK THE BROAD PHRASE IS
INTENDED TO MEAN THEY CAN LOOK
AT HOW MONEY IS SPENT.
THIS IS A COMMISSION SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT EFFICIENCIES AND
PROPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
TO DEAL WITH EFFICIENCIES.
>> DON'T WE GO BACK TO, IF YOU
HAVE D, WHICH HAS A DELINEATION
OF FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT THINGS
THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN
EXAMINE, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE,
AND IF THEY CAN PROPOSE AN
AMENDMENT ABOUT ANYTHING THAT
THEY EXAMINE, THEN WHY DO WE
GET TO E AND WE HAVE TWO THINGS
THAT ARE DELINEATED THAT THIS
COMMISSION CAN MAKE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS ABOUT?
THAT'S WHERE THE REAL PROBLEM
COMES IN, AND WE'RE HAVING A
PROBLEM.
>> AND IF I COULD GET TO THE
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION YOURS
AS WELL I THINK IS THE SAME,
THE CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION
HERE, HOW SHOULD THIS COURT
INTERPRET THIS PHRASE AND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS COURT ALWAYS
CONSTRUES THINGS TOGETHER.
6D AND E AS THE TRIAL COURT
DID.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN HERE?
ARE THERE GOING TO BE ABSURD
RESULTS?
I CAN'T IMAGINE IN PLAIN
ARGUMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS, BUT THEY CAN'T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND PROPOSE A
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM?
>> WHERE DOES THAT STOP?
IT SEEMS TO ME UNDER YOUR
READING OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION, THE, THIS COMMISSION
CAN MAKE, IF THEY CAN TELL US
THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT,
THEN THEY CAN CHANGE ANY
AMENDMENT.
MOST THINGS WOULD TOUCH ON SOME
KIND OF BUDGET ISSUE.
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY
CORRECT.
I MEAN, IF YOU -- THERE ARE
CERTAINLY SOME LIMITATIONS
HERE, AND IF I WERE TO PROPOSE
A TEST FOR THE COURT, THE COURT
HAS TO -- FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A
HIGH STANDARD OF REVIEW.
WE KNOW THAT.
IT HAS TO BE CLEARLY,
CONCLUSIVELY SHOW THAT IT'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT A
REASONABLE DOUBT AND GIVEN DUE
DEFERENCE -- THAT'S A HIGH
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
THE QUESTION IS DID THIS
COMMISSION EXCEED THE
AUTHORITY.
AND IS THERE A REASONABLE
CONNECTION TO TAXATION OR
BUDGETARY PROCESS MATTER.
>> WHAT --
>> WHAT IS THE TITLE OF BALLOT
7?
>> 7, THE TITLE IS, FOR 7.
>> ISN'T IT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
>> YES.
>> AND DOES NOBODY ATTACK THE
TITLE BUT, I MIEN TO ME -- I
MEAN TO ME I THINK THAT IF IT
WAS RAISED, AND I'M CONCERNED
THAT TITLE IS MISLEADING IN
ITSELF BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S
CALLED RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND
THE FACT THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW,
TAKING THE PHRASE THAT THEY MAY
NOT BE BARRED FROM
PARTICIPATING IN ANY PUBLIC
PROGRAM COULD BE AS FAR AFIELD
AS ANY.
IF THEY SAID WE ARE GOING TO
PROPOSE A REPEAL OF THE
CLASS-SIZE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT
IS REALLY IMPACTING THE BUDGET,
I THINK THAT YOU'D HAVE A
CLOSER ARGUMENTS.
BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS TO ME
WHETHER IT IS 100% STATE
BUDGETARY COMMISSION --
BUDGETARY PROCESS MEANS
ANYTHING OR IT'S REALLY NARROW
OR IS IT 25% AND I MIGHT BE
WILLING TO SAY WELL IT MIGHT BE
25% LIKE THIS IDEA OF A
LIMITATION ON SOMETHING, BUT IF
IT'S ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES ON
EXPENDITURES THEN IT SEEMS LIKE
IT'S ALMOST CLOSE TO 100% AND
YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TAXATION TO
BE A SEPARATE PHRASE.
>> IF YOU WOULD JUST ANSWER
THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE WELL INTO
MR.^GRIMES' TIME.
>> IF I COULD.
OBVIOUSLY THAT BALLOT SUMMARY
AND TITLE IS NOT BEFORE THE
COURT, BUT I THINK THE
CONCERN YOU ARE BRINGING IS
ADDED TO THE LANGUAGE THERE AND
THE ISSUE THERE WAS THE
LANGUAGE BEYOND THE TBRC'S
AUTHORITY.
WHAT THEY DID IS RESTRICT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION AND
IT ADDED TO THE PLACE THE OTHER
SENTENCE BASICALLY TO SAY THE
LEGISLATURE CANNOT DO WHAT THE
BLAINE AMENDMENT DID.
IN OTHER WORDS IT'S PUTTING A
LIMITATION ON THE LEGISLATURE
YOU CAN'T PUT THIS LIMITATION
ON FUNDING.
BUT IN THE END, IT'S A FUNDING
ISSUE AS THIS COURT SAID IN THE
OPINION AND IN THE END LET ME
JUST SAY IF I COULD GET TO THE
ONE QUESTION.
THERE'S ALL METHODS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
LAID OUT.
THEY ALL LAY OUT A BROAD
AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE
COMMISSION.
THE CANON, THE COMMISSION OF
THE COMMISSION, THE STANDARD OF
REVIEW, THE STRUCTURE AND
LANGUAGE, READING IT TOGETHER,
THE ONE QUESTION ABOUT HOW
COULD THIS ONE SPECIFIC GENERAL
-- OR THIS ONE SPECIFIC PHRASE
BE BROADLY CONSTRUED WELL IT'S
SURROUNDED BY BROAD PHRASES AND
THIS COURT HAS OF
CONSTRUCTION WHEN YOU DON'T
KNOW ABOUT THE SCOPE OF
PARTICULAR CONSTITUTION.
WE ASK THE TRIAL COURT BE
UPHELD.
THANK YOU, MR.^MAKAR.
MR.^GRIMES?
>> STEPHEN GRIMES ON BEHALF OF
THE INTERVENERS.
I THINK THE CONCERN SEVERAL OF
YOU HAVE RAISED IS THAT WELL,
GEE WHIZ, THE COMMISSION, IF WE
TALK ABOUT EXTEND NOT ONLY
TAXATION BUT ALSO EXPENDITURES,
THAT THEY COULD COME UP WITH
ALMOST, ALMOST ANYTHING.
WELL, OF COURSE, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
COMMISSION CAN, WHICH MEETS
EVERY 20 YEARS, IT CAN PROPOSE
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON,
ON ANYTHING.
THIS COMMISSION MEETS EVERY 20
YEARS, AND SO EVERY TEN YEARS
ONE OR THE OTHER MEETING IS.
-- AND THIS COMMISSION
CERTAINLY HAS A, IN OUR JUDGMENT
HAS A BROAD SCOPE BUT IT HAS TO
BE LIMITED TO TAXATION AND
EXPENDITURES.
BUT THEY COMPLEMENT --
>> YOU SAY TAXATION AND
EXPENDITURES, BUT COULDN'T HAVE
-- COULDN'T THE CONSTITUTION
EXPLICITLY SAY TAXATION OR
EXPENDITURES LIKE IT DID IN
SECTION D WHICH SAYS EXAMINE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON
TAXATION AND EXPENDITURES?
IT CERTAINLY KNEW HOW TO USE
THAT WORD WHEN IT HAD TO.
THE FACT THAT IT USED A
DIFFERENT PHRASE INSTEAD OF
EXPENDITURES IN SECTION E,
DOESN'T THAT INDICATE A
DIFFERENCE IN MEANING?
>> I SUGGEST THAT IT DOESN'T.
THERE REALLY IS NO PURPOSE IN
SETTING FORTH ALL OF THE THINGS
RELATING TO EXPENDITURES IN D
UNLESS YOU CONSTRUE THEM
TOGETHER.
NOW, WHAT THE OPPONENTS WOULD
SAY IS WE HAD TO REPEAT
EVERYTHING IN D INTO E.
>> WELL, YOU COULD'VE SAID
RECORD THIS PURPOSEFUL ANY
REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS STUDIED IN
SECTION D.
>> IT COULD SAY THAT, BUT, BUT
THE FACT THAT THE -- I STILL
THINK THAT THE, THE, THE
LANGUAGE IN D THEN IS RENDERED
SIMPLY SUPERFLUOUS GENERALLY IF
YOU GO BEYOND I READ THE WORD
BUDGETARY PROCESS, THE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IS SIMPLY
EXPLAINING BUDGETARY PROCESS.
>> WELL, WHY ISN'T D REALLY THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO
LOOK INTO ALL THESE ITEMS SO
THEY COULD BE -- SO THEY CAN BE
INFORMED AS TO WHAT KIND OF
TAXATION PROPOSALS TO MAKE OR
WHAT KIND OF BUDGET PROCESS
PROPOSALS TO MAKE?
I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE
A, A PROPOSAL ABOUT EACH OF
THOSE THINGS THAT YOU EXAMINE.
BUT THOSE THINGS ARE USED IN
ORDER TO MAKE PROPOSALS.
THAT SEEMS TO ME A VERY SIMPLE
AND, AND READING OF WHAT THESE
TWO PROVISIONS STAND FOR.
>> BUT IF YOU LOOK INTO ALL
THESE THINGS, AND THEN CAN'T
MAKE A, A RECOMMENDATION FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION ON
IT --
>> WELL, YOU PUT THEM IN YOUR
REPORT.
NEXT TEN YEARS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
COMMISSION MEETS, THEY MIGHT
WANT TO TAKE UP SOME OF THESE
ISSUES THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE
TAXATION AND BUDGET
COMMISSION'S REPORT.
I MEAN, I DON'T SEE THAT AS, AS
BEING SOME BIG ISSUE JUST
BECAUSE -THEY CAN'T MAKE A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL ON EACH
OF THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT
THEY'RE STUDYING.
I'M JUST --, I'M HAVING A HARD
TIME FOLLOWING YOUR ARGUMENT
THAT JUST BECAUSE THESE THINGS
ARE STUDIED YOU NECESSARILY
NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A
PROPOSAL.
ON THEM.
>> YOU SEE HOW PART OF OUR
CONCERN OR SOME OF US HAS TO DO
WITH IN ESSENCE THE TRIAL JUDGE
BY THIS BROAD INTERPRETATION IS
REALLY READ HAS THE WORD
PROCESS OUT OF THE, THE, THE
EQUATION.
AND THEN, AND INSTEAD, IN
ESSENCE, HAS SUBSTITUTED JUST
PERHAPS THE WORD BUDGET.
EVERY YEAR WE HAVE A ROUND OF
COMPLAINTS BY ALL OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS PASSED A WHOLE BUNCH OF
LAWS AND THAT THEY CREATE
UNFUNDED MANDATES.
AND THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF
WE KNOW THAT EVERY THING THAT
THE LEGISLATURE DOES HAS AN
EFFECT ON THE BUDGET.
EVERYTHING THEY DO.
IF THEY SAY YOU HAVE TO
INCREASE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
POLICE OFFICERS, WELL, IT'S
GOING TO IMPACT THE BUDGET
BECAUSE THERE'S A, AND SO, MY
CONCERN, AND I THINK SOME OF
THE OTHER JUDGES' IS THAT THIS
JUST MEANS THAT THIS
COMMISSION, IF ALL IT HAS TO DO
IS IMPACT THE BUDGET, AND, AND
NOT JUST THE PROCESS, THAT THEY
COULD DO ANYTHING.
THEY COULD SAY, WELL WE SHOULD
HAVE 100,000 NEW POLICE
OFFICERS ON THE STREET BECAUSE
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE
BUDGET.
SO HELP US -- HAVEN'T YOU READ
OUT THE WORD PROCESS FROM THIS
PROVISION?
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK PROCESS
-- THE WORD PROCESS IS AS
LIMITING AS YOU MIGHT HAVE IT.
>> WELL, AS JUSTICE WELLS
POINTS OUT, THERE'S TWO DIRECT
PLACES THAT WE CAN GO IN
ADDITION TO THE DICTIONARY, AND
WHAT WE'RE ALL USED TO WITH
REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF
PROCESS BEING DIFFERENT THAN A
SUBSTANTIVE MATTER.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I SUGGEST
THAT IN D, WHEN IT SAID BUDGET
AND PROCESS AND THEN WENT ON TO
LIST ALL THESE THINGS, THAT WAS
INCLUDED IN BUDGETING PROCESS.
HOWEVER, THE PROCESS CAN BE
DEFINED IN --
>> SO THE COMMISSION COULD PUT
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON
THERE ABOUT ANYTHING SO LONG AS
IT AFFECTS THE BUDGET OF THE
STATE?
>> AS LONG AS IT AFFECTED AN
EXPENDITURE, I THINK IT COULD.
NOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO
IT.
>> 100,000 NEW POLICE OFFICERS
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF HEARING?
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, SO LONG AS
IT HAS SOME FISCAL IMPACT, THIS
COMMISSION COULD PUT THAT
PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT?.
>> JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REVISION COMMISSION, COULD PUT
ANYTHING ON THE BALLOT.
THE FACT IS THEY'RE A NOT GOING
TO DO THAT BUT THE,, THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
COMMISSION, THEY CAN PUT
ANYTHING ON THE BALLOT.
THIS HAS --, THE, THE TBRC HAS
TO HAVE SOME RELATIONSHIP TO
REVENUE, TO TAXATION, OR
EXPENDITURES.
>> MR.^GRIMES, YOU'RE WELL OVER
YOUR TIME.
IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE US A
CONCLUDING STATEMENT, PLEASE.
>> YOUR HONOR, WE, I, I, I
SUBMIT THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
D AND E TOGETHER AND WHAT THE,
THE INTENT OF THE, THE PEOPLE
THAT PASSED THIS TO GIVE A
BROAD REVIEW AND TO LIMIT THEM
IN THE WAY OF PROCESS, LIMIT
PROCESS TO THAT EXTENT, YOU'D
HAVE THWARTED THE ABILITY OF
THE COMMISSION TO DO A LOT OF
MEANINGFUL WORK, AND I, WITH --
TO KEEP THIS AWAY FROM THE
VOTERS, IT'S GOT TO BE
CONCLUSIVELY INVALID AND I
SUBMIT THAT IT DOESN'T APPROACH
THAT, THAT, AND THEREFORE, WE
SUBMIT THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION OVER
HERE.
IN SUBSECTION D, IT LIMITS THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO ANALYZE
REGARDING OR ALLOWS IT TO
EXAMINE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON TAXATION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON
EXPENDITURES.
SO DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT WOULD
LIMIT THE NATURE OF THE BUDGET
REVIEW OR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
THIS COMMISSION CAN MAKE?
>> -- BECAUSE HERE WE'RE ONLY
TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS.
>> RIGHT.
>> ON EXPENDITURES, CORRECT?
>> I THINK, I THINK WHAT D DOES
IS IT, IT GIVES A BROAD RANGE
OF THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION
CAN EXAMINE.
>> BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT TO
THAT, AS FAR AS CONSTITUTION --
BECAUSE YOU GO INTO THE SECOND,
THE ISSUE REPORT SOME GO INS
INTO LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH
LAWS AND THE SECOND PART GOES
TO THE PEOPLE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO
AMEND THEIR CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE THERE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS OR RESTRAINTS ON
TAXATION OR EXPENDITURES.
IN THIS CASE, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION
ON EXPENDITURES, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND SO YOU AGREE THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
EXAMINE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON TAXATION AND
EXPENDITURES?
>> I DO.
>> BUT YOUR BELIEF IS THAT ONCE
THEY DO THAT, THE COMMISSION
CAN DO WHAT AS TO LIMITATIONS
ON EXPENDITURES?
NOT TAXATION.
>> WHAT IT CAN DO IS IT CAN
ISSUE A REPORT AS IT DID MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> TO WHOM?
>> IT CAN ISSUE A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS ON BUDGETARY
LAWS.
IT CAN PROPOSE BALLOT
INITIATIVES OR BALLOT PROPOSALS
THAT DEAL WITH TAXATION OR
STATE BUDGETARY PROCESS.
>> BUT NOT LIMITATIONS ON
EXPENDITURES IN THE
CONSTITUTION?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T
BELIEVE SO BECAUSE 6E SAYS IT
CAN'T.
>> WEAL RELY UPON OUR BRIEF FOR
THE REMAINING POINTS AND I'LL
WAIVE ANY FURTHER REBUTTAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
WE THANK BOTH FOR YOU FOR YOUR
ARGUMENTS.
WE KNOW THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.