finding that section 101.161(1) has always been interpreted to mean that the ballot title and summary must be read together in determining if the ballot information properly informs the voter
How later courts described this case
- finding that section 101.161(1) has always been interpreted to mean that the ballot title and summary must be read together in determining if the ballot information properly informs the voter
- noting that “[t]he seventy-five word limit placed on the ballot summary as required by statute does not lend itself to an explanation of all of a proposed amendment’s details”
- “A primary purpose for the single-subject restriction is to prevent ‘logrolling,’ a practice whereby an amendment is proposed which contains unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to support, in order to get an otherwise disfavored provision passed.”
- "A primary reason for the single-subject restriction is to prevent `logrolling,' a practice whereby an amendment is proposed which contains unrelated provisions, some of which electors might wish to support, in order to get an otherwise disfavored provision passed."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I generally agree with the rationale of the majority opinion. I dissent only because the ballot summary does not disclose that the amendment authorizes one of the casinos to be located in the South Pointe Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach. I believe the voters are entitled to know that the owners of land within such a precisely described location may stand to benefit from the passage of the amendment.