State Supreme Court hears arguments for putting discarded amendments back on ballot

TALLAHASSEE — Lawyers squared off Wednesday before the Florida Supreme Court on challenges to three proposed constitutional amendments that have been kicked off the November ballot.

The proposals would affect how the Legislature redraws political boundaries, how people buy health care and which property owners receive tax breaks.

All three ballot amendments have been tossed by trial courts. Arguably the most intriguing case concerns redistricting, as evidenced by incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon personally defending the Legislature's proposed Amendment 7.

The Legislature crafted it in response to Amendments 5 and 6, the so-called Fair Districts amendments. Those would bar lawmakers from drawing district boundaries that favor a political party or candidate.

"It would have the net affect of reducing minority representation in Congress and the Legislature," Cannon said, echoing the concerns of two minority members of Congress who support the Legislature's amendment.

After a challenge by the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, that amendment was struck down last month by a circuit judge, who said it was so confusing it took him three days to understand it.

Some justices on Wednesday argued that the proposal was made to look like it was part of a package of amendments, but it says nothing about its effect on the earlier two proposals.

"It just seems to me that we are really doing the public a disservice when we put these kinds of amendments on the ballot," said Justice Peggy Quince.

Cannon argued the proposal allows lawmakers to consider "communities of interest," which are used to cluster minorities together in a district. He said Fair Districts would remove that.

Justice Fred Lewis suggested Amendment 7's wording was deliberately misleading. But Cannon said lawmakers wrote it in such a way "to avoid any charge of editorializing, wordsmithing and trickery."

A second politically charged case deals with the Legislature's challenge to the new federal health care law. That amendment, struck from the ballot because of a misleading summary, would prohibit Florida from participating in any health insurance exchange that compels people to buy insurance.

Supporters argued that the full text of the amendment, which doesn't contain the offending phrases from the summary, be placed on the ballot instead.

"Ballot challenges were meant to protect, not disenfranchise voters," argued Assistant Attorney General Russell Kent.

Gary Early, a lawyer challenging the proposal, argued if the court replaced the summary, it would "assume the role of the Legislature" by deciding what will go on the ballot.

The justices also considered a case regarding Amendment 3, which would give extra tax breaks to first-time home buyers.

Opponents said it doesn't tell people that the tax break applies only to property bought after Jan. 1, 2010. A lawyer for the Attorney General's Office called this "a hyper-technical analysis," and said the intent is clear.

The justices have no timetable for rendering their opinions, but have expedited the cases because of their bearing on the November election.