Florida Supreme Court Accepts ‘Impact Statement’ on Costs of Abortion Amendment

In a defeat for supporters of a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for a revised “financial impact statement” to appear on the November ballot.

Financial impact statements, which usually attract little attention, provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional changes on government revenue and the state budget. But the final statement for the abortion amendment has sparked controversy, as Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee that supports the proposal, says it is politicized and misleading.

The commission filed a lawsuit alleging that Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, Dem. of Naples, and House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, lacked the power to direct a panel of economists, known as the Financial Impact Assessment Conference, to review the statement. Legislative leaders made the move amid legal wrangling after a circuit judge ruled that an initial statement needed to be rewritten.

But Wednesday’s 6-1 ruling, written by Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, rejected the panel’s arguments.

Floridians Protecting Freedom representatives “actively participated in the conference estimate process they are now challenging, without questioning or objecting to the conference’s authority to issue a revised financial impact statement on its own initiative. For this basic reason, petitioners have waived or waived any reasonable request for extraordinary relief from this court,” the chief justice wrote in the opinion joined by Justices Charles Canady, John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans and Meredith Sasso. Justice Renatha Francis agreed and wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Jorge Labarga dissented.

Supporters of the measure, which will appear on the ballot as Amendment 4, said Wednesday that the revised statement is meant to confuse voters.

“Despite today’s decision, a yes on Amendment 4 still means getting politicians out of our exam rooms so that women are free to make their own health care decisions with their doctors. Adding a misleading financial impact statement to deliberately confuse voters is a shameful attempt to hide the fact that Florida law currently prohibits abortion before many women know they are pregnant, with no exceptions for rape, incest or a woman’s health “, Lauren Brenzel, director of the institution. commission, said in a statement.

The Financial Impact Assessment Conference released an initial statement about the proposed change in November 2023. But legal wrangling over the statement began after an April 1 state Supreme Court decision that broke with decades of judicial precedent and allowed the entry into force of a 2023 law that prevented abortions. after six weeks of pregnancy.

Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit on April 5, arguing that the November financial impact statement needed to be revised because it was out of date after the April ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed in June and ordered the Financial Impact Assessment Conference to come up with a new version.

Amid a state appeal of Cooper’s ruling, Passidomo and Renner ordered the conference to meet. The conference held three meetings in July before releasing the revised version, with the controversial changes spearheaded by economists representing Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state House.

Supporters of the amendment “never questioned” the commission’s authority to “voluntarily adopt” a revised statement, Muniz wrote Wednesday.

“Instead, they actively participated in every step of the review process without objection. They gave oral and written presentations at each of the three estimates conference meetings in July, soundly and forcefully arguing their position on what the revised financial impact statement should say,” he added.

The ruling rejected the request that the court order another impact statement “without expressing any view as to the substantive legality of the revised statement itself.”

But Labarga, one of two justices on the seven-member court not appointed by DeSantis, said the court should decide “legitimate questions” raised in the lawsuit about whether legislative leaders have the authority to order a revised statement .

“As the majority describes, this case involves an extremely fluid procedural history. … It is no exaggeration to say that the circumstances of this case are quite complicated,” Labarga wrote, noting the timeline leading up to Wednesday’s decision. “All of these circumstances have led to a legal quagmire, one that does not lend itself to today’s outcome. This case, involving unique facts, untested legal issues, and a time-sensitive matter of statewide importance, calls for more.”

The revised statement that will appear on the ballot says, in part, that there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve these and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to state government and state courts, which will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions can negatively affect state and local revenue growth over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be precisely estimated, the total impact of the proposed amendment is undetermined.”

Critics of Amendment 4, including DeSantis, argue that it would eliminate state restrictions on abortion, except for an earlier amendment that required parental notification before minors could obtain an abortion.

DeSantis’ chief of staff, James Uthmeier, heads two political committees that are raising millions of dollars to fight the abortion measure and another proposed constitutional amendment that would allow adults to use recreational marijuana.

Floridians Protecting Freedom has raised more than $47 million since forming in the spring of 2023 and spent about $24 million as of last week.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida called Wednesday’s decision a “direct affront to the rights of Florida voters who deserve fair and legal information” when deciding on constitutional changes.

“The politicization of these financial impact statements erodes public trust in our institutions and threatens the integrity of every future ballot measure. The implications of this decision are dire – the court effectively gave the state unchecked authority to manipulate voter information without any meaningful oversight, setting the stage for future abuses of power where state officials can bypass the courts and the law with impunity,” Michelle Morton. , staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement.

Copyright 2024 WUSF 89.7