Courts should trash these proposals

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement already has an office to confront the threat of terrorism. And Florida already has a Department of Veterans Affairs. Neither needs to be written into the state Constitution. Yet both are on the Nov. 6 ballot as politically appealing eyewash for a devious scheme to tear up the charters of Broward and seven other counties — and cripple home rule throughout the state.

The change benefits no one, but some sheriffs and other local constitutional officials who seem to have grown too big for their britches. It would happen, though, should voters agree to Amendment 10, a proposal by the Constitution Revision Commission that would have its leaders scrounging for bail money if deceptive political posturing were a criminal offense.

In this case, however, there is something the civil courts can do. That’s to throw this political malpractice off the ballot on account of a summary that doesn’t fairly tell voters what they would be doing.

Broward and Volusia Counties have filed separate Circuit Court lawsuits in Tallahassee to bounce the proposed amendment from the ballot. The court should give these cases a high priority and deal with them promptly, since the decisions will be appealed no matter which way they go.

Among the intended effects of Amendment 10:

Broward, which appoints its tax collector, would have to elect one.

The clerk of court would regain some duties that were sensibly transferred to the county administrator and an independent auditor.

Miami-Dade, which appoints its chief law enforcer, would have to elect a sheriff.

And no other county would be allowed to appoint, rather than elect, any sheriff, property appraiser, tax collector, supervisor of elections or circuit court clerk. No charter could alter their duties.

While the restriction on future charters is made plain in the commission’s ballot summary, the fatal flaw is the summary’s failure to specify the reactionary changes that would be forced upon the eight counties whose voters choose to appoint, rather than elect, some of their officials.

As Broward’s suit describes it, “The ballot title and summary for Revision 10 are ambiguous and unclear, and do not fairly inform the voter of the scope of the revision.”

Here’s the text of the ballot summary, which is all the voters would have to inform them of the consequences:

“STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND OPERATION – Requires legislature to retain department of veterans’ affairs. Ensures election of sheriffs, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, tax collectors, and clerks of court in all counties; removes county charters’ ability to abolish, change term, transfer duties, or eliminate election of these offices. Changes annual legislative session commencement date in even-numbered years from March to January; removes legislature’s authorization to fix another date. Creates office of domestic security and counterterrorism within department of law enforcement.”

In putting all those together, the revision commission grossly abused its power to propose amendments that range beyond a single subject. To do it with proposals that have nothing much in common is called logrolling. To the commission it was called “bundling,” a distinction without a difference. There is a Florida Supreme Court precedent from the 1950s against a similar caper that the Legislature tried to pull off.

Amendment 10 was lobbied by a coalition of sheriffs and other officials, and sponsored by commission members with significant conflicts of interest. One is a court clerk. Another is a sheriff, and a third was an acting sheriff who now works for the attorney general. Although Amendment 10 would not affect their own jobs directly, it would increase the already substantial collective political influence of their statewide associations.

The commission pulled the same stunt with Amendment 8. It lumps a mandate that school board members serve no more than two terms with a requirement to teach civic literacy and let the state establish schools not subject to a local school board’s supervision or control. The plain intent is to rip apart the constitutional requirement that Florida have a “uniform” system of free public schools, laying the groundwork for massive support to religious schools and corporate-run charters. Commission member Hank Coxe, a former president of the Florida Bar, argued in dissent that it would “abolish public education” in Florida. Coxe has also been outspoken against the logrolling.

Amendment 8 isn’t in court yet, but it will be. Ron Meyer, an attorney for the Florida Education Association, said the paperwork is being prepared. The ballot summary, he said, is not only misleading but “essentially unintelligible.” It deserves to go into the trash can along with Amendment 10.

The overall performance of this commission was so poor, especially compared to that of the last commission 20 years ago, as to renew an old argument about whether Florida still needs this method of amending the constitution. We think it does, but the courts should send a clear message to the commission of 2037-38 not to abuse its powers as this one did.