Florida Supreme Court justices this morning are voicing nearly universal criticism of the wording of the Amendment 5 "tax swap," suggesting it may be misleading as critics contend.

"The way I read this is it's a quid pro quo," said Justice Charles Wells, referring to the concept of trading school property taxes for higher sales tax. But, as Wells and others have noted during a hearing now under way, full school funding is only good for one year. After that the Legislature has to come up with a funding formula.

"It's not a lifetime warranty; it's a limited warranty," Wells said.

Justice Harry Lee Anstead agreed that the public could be mislead. "As I’m going to vote, I read this and I say, ‘Well, why shouldn’t I do this?’ ...  Then I find out, the fine print says they only have to do that for one year. After that, we have a problem. Why isn’t that misleading?"

Mark Herron, one of the lawyers defending the measure, called the ballot title a "caption" and said voters would read it along with the summary to grasp the idea.

"We're not hiding the ball," he asserted.

But the skepticism kept flying. Justice Barbara Pariente said she found the hold harmless language the "most offensive" part of the proposal.

The Amendment 5 discussion came after the justices had already put voucher proponents on the defensive, questioning whether Taxation and Budget Reform Commission had authority to delve into such issues.

More to come ...

*