MARSHAL: ALL RISE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDAIS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTIONAND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE T HESE UNITED STATES , THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDAAND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THEFLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING , LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FI RST C ASE ON THIS DOCKET, I AM NOT GOING TO IS SAY THE WHOLE TITLE, BUT IT IS THE ADVISORY OPINION AND IN REFERENCE TO INDEPENDENT PARTISAN COMMISSION TO AORTION . THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. PARTIES ARE R E ADY , AND MR . HUBENER , YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE?

GOOD MORNING. LOUIS HUB ENER W ITH THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE. THIS MATTER IS HER E ON THE REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION ON THIS REAORTIONMENT PROPOSAL . M ARK HERRON WILL A R GUE IN FAVOR OF THE AM ENDMENT , AND BARE RICHARD AND DUDLEY GOODLETTE, WILL ARGUE IN OOSITION. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU . M R. HER ONE , AND AS -- MR. HERON , MAKE YOUR AEARANCE .

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT , MY NAME IS MA RK HERRON AND TO M Y LEFT IS MARK HELFERT , AND WE HAVE AS KED FOR 5 MINUTES REBU TTAL TIME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IN THIS CASE WITH THE TIME , THERE MAY BE TH REE DIFFERENT AREAS TO ADDRESS, NOT ON LY THE S INGLE SUBJECT AND THE BALLOT AND TITLE , B UT THE FORM THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT , SO IF YOU COULD FIRST START WITH S INGLE SUBJECT.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THE PURPOSE , OVERRIDING AND CONTROLLING PURPOSE OF IN INITIATIVE PROPOSAL IS TO ESTABLISH A NONPARTISAN PROCESS FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTSTHAT ARE ALLOCATED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY CON GRESS. ALL PROVIS IONS OF THE AMENDMENT ARE NATURALLY AND LOGICALLY CONNECTED TO THAT ONE SI NGLE PUR POSE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS , S INCE YOU KNOW WHAT THE ISSU ES ARE THAT HAVE BEEN RA ISED , THEIRCONCERNS ON SINGLE SUBJ ECT.

THE OONENTS IN ITIALLY RAISED THE PROPOSED, THE I SSUE THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE PROP OSAL L OG ROLLS IN THE SE NSE THAT IT CONN ECTS STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTINGIN ONE PROPOSAL , AND THEY WOULD SAY THAT THAT I S LOG ROLLING. THE TEST IN O RDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE I S IMPERMISSIBLE LOG RO LLING , THIS COURT HAS ANNOUNCED IN SEVERAL CASES, IS THAT THIS COURT MUST EXAMINE THEAMENDMENT AND DETERMINEWHETHER IT MAY BE VIEWED LOGICALLY A S HA VING ONE NATURAL RE LATION AND CONNECTION AS COM PONENT PARTS OR ASPECTS OF SANK HE WILL DOMINANT PLAN OR SCHEME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE F ACT THAT IT IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE REAORTIONMENT OCCURS IN THE CONGRESS IONAL REAORTIONMENT , DOESN'TTHAT IN IT SELF , C REATE TWO DISPARATE SITUATIONS ?

NO , YOUR HO NOR , IT DOES NOT , AND THE REASON WHY , ISTHAT THE NATURAL PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE THE POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP OUT OF THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCEDURES THAT CURRENTLY UNDE RGO TO DAY, DOES NOT MAKE THIS A SINGLE SUBJECT ISSUE.

BUT ISN'T THERE A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING AND LEGISL ATIVE REDISTRICTING ? IN ONE, THE PO WER OF THE COURT OR ANYBODY , ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT , TO CH ANGE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING F ROM BEING THE PREROGATIVE OF THE LEGISLATURE , BY REA SON OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAYS IT IS TO BE DONE BY THE LEGISLATURE.

WELL , I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SINGLE SUBJECT DETERMINATION BEFORE THIS COURT. IF THERE IS A ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO UN ITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THAT IS A ISSUE TO BE ADDR ESSED OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S RE SLEW OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT - - REVIEW OF THESINGLE SUBJECT ARE A, AND YOUHAVE SA ID THAT IN NUME ROUS C ASES.

THAT GO ES TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE M ETHOD OF THE REDISTRICTING , BUT HOW CA N IT BE THE SAME SUBJECT?

WELL , A GAIN , IT IS THE SAME SUBJECT, BECAUSE IT IS LOGICALLY AND NAT URALLY COLLECTED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED THESE PETITIONS, WANT TO T AKE PARTISANSHIP OUT OF THE PROCESS. THEY WANT A COMMISSION TO DO IT, AS OOSED TO THE LEGISLATURE , AND THE GOVERNOR, AND , AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO GET TO THAT ISSUE, TOO , THAT IS IN THIS PROCESS , THE GO VERNOR ACTS AS A PARTISAN ACTOR IN THIS PROCESS AS WELL , AND I BELIEVE THAT IS CONCEDED BY THE OO NENTS , IN THIS INSTANCE SAYING WE ARE INTERFERING .

CHIEF JUSTICE: HOW FAR COULD YOU GO? COULD YOU SET UP A NONSPARTSAN COMMISSION ANDSAY THAT ALL OF THE OTHEROFFICES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTROLLED THROUGH THIS NONPARTISAN COMM ISSION ? IN OTHER WORDS AT WHAT POINT OR BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS REDISTRICTING THAT THAT MAKES IT NARROWER?

WE ARE TALKING A BOUT THE FUNCTION TO DO LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING TO ESTABLISH THE DISTRICTS OF THE PE OPLE , AS WE SAID , AND THAT IS TO ESTABLISH THE SINGLE FUNCTION THAT THIS AMENDMENT DEALS WITH. W E ARE NOT DE ALING WITH DEALING WITH THIS COMMISSION SETTING UP SC HOOL BOARD DISTRICTS AND COUNT Y COMMISSION DISTRICTS OR CITY DIS TRICTS. WE ARE TALKING AB OUT THEFUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE CURRENTLYOPERATES IN THAT REAL M.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NO W, HOWABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE STANDARDS?THAT IS THAT AL THOUGH IT HAS BEEN THE PRAC TICE TO HAVE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS , IT IS NOT ENSH RINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND SO THAT NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE NOT ONLY THE ME THOD IS BEING CHANGED BUT STANDARDSARE BEING ENSHRINED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

WELL , STA NDARDS ARE CURRENTLY ENSH RINED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROV ISION THAT IS THERE NOW. THERE ARE STAN DARDS IN THERE THAT TALK ABOUT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NO MORE THAN 30 OR NO LESS THAN 30 AND N O MORE THAN 40 STATE SENATE DISTRICTS.

WHY DO YOU NEED THAT IN THE SNAEMENT.

PARDON ME?

WHY DO YOU N EED THAT IN THE AMENDM ENT? IT IS IN THERE NOW?

WE HAVE INCORPORATED THAT AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, T RY IN G TO DISTINGUISH THAT FROM THE ADDITION OR REFERENCE FROM THE SINGLE M E MBER DISTRICT STANDARD , ALREADY PART OF THIS AMENDM ENT AND NOT CHALLENGED BY THE OONENTS. WHAT THEY ARE CHALLENGING IS I GUESS THE ADD ITION OR HIGHLIGHTING OF THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PROPOSED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT NOT A CHAN GE?

IT IS A CHANGE TARNTION IS HIGHLIGHTED BUT IT IS NOT A SINGLE SUBJECT PROBLEM , BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONCEDE OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE, AND I DON'T THINK THE COURTCOULD SAY THAT STANDARDSWOULD BE AN INAROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR INCLUSION IN THIS AMENDMENT, BEC AUSE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SCOPE ANDTHE ME ANS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AME NDMENT , IN A PROPOSED INI TIATIVE PROPOSAL , AND THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL , EXCEPT THAT ONE IS A MECHANISM, AND THE OTHER IS LIMITING HOW THE PROCEDURE IS BEING CARR IED OUT. AND WE HAVE SO MA NY CA SES WHERE YOU CAN'T , THE TAX ANDTHE FEE , YOU KNOW , SO THAT WHEN WE GO TO A CITIZENS PROPOSAL, THE SINGLE SUBJECT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE PRETTY SERIOUSLY ABOUT NOTHAVING, EVEN IF THEY ARE LOGICALLY RELATED , THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY INCL UDED AS PART O F THE AMENDMENT, SO THAT IT AN ADD ON.

I THINK THAT YOUR HONORFRBS THAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN IT WO ULD HAVE PROB ABLY -- IF THAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN IT WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN INAROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE 3 0, 40 AND 80-TO-120 , BECAUSE THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT LIMITS THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COMMIS SION IN THIS CASE, FROM C REATING DISTRICTS OUTSI DE OF THOSE PARAMETERS, BUT THE ONLY ATTACK HERE -- .

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT , BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SUBSECTION A IS A DIFFERENT SUBJECT FROM THE F OLLOW ING PARAGRAPHS ONE AND TWO , WH ICH ARE THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSION , WH EREAS PARAGRAPH A SEEMS TO BE ABOUT THE COM POSITION OF THE DISTRICTS . WHY AREN'T THOSE TWO SEPARATE SUBJECTS?

AGAIN, THE T EST THAT THIS COURT HAS PUT FORWARD, THE TEST OF ARE THEY NATU RALLY AND LOGICALLY CONN ECTED . NOW , I F WE HAVE A PROCESS , I GUESS YOU COULD TALK ABOUT SUBSECTION C IN TERMS OF THE COURT HAVING A ROLE IN THIS AS WEL L. THE NOLLE PROSES IS WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS -- THE NOLLE PROS ES , IS -- THE N ATURAL PROCESS WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS FROM BEGINNING TO END. WE WANT TO HAVE A PROCESS , PROVISION IN S THERE FOR THEIR AO INTMENT , HOW THEY OPERATE AND HOW THEY FAIL TO REACH AN AGRE EMENT , JUST LIKE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL --

I DE GREE AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS WITH PARAGRAPH A, W HICH IS TOTALLY DI FFERENT FROM THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS, TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION ANDWHAT HA ENS IF YOU DON'T AGREE AND WHO IS ON THE COMMISSION AND ALL OF THAT. PARAGRAPH A HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

PARAG RAPH A BASICALLY SAYS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A COMMISSION TO DO THIS , AND WE ARE GOING TO DO I T WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS.

BUT IT DOES MORE THAN THAT. IT SAYS A COMMISSION S HALL DIVIDE THE STATE INTO NOT LESS OR MORE THAN 40 CONSECUTIVELY NUM BERED SENATORIAL DISTRICTS AND NOTLESS THAN 80 NOR MORE THAN 120 SINGLE MEMBER REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. THAT SEEMS TO SAY NOT ONLY WHAT THE COMP OSITION OF THE COMMISSION IS BUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE DISTRICTS.

AND, AGAI N, I THINK THAT STANDARDS IS NOT A SEPARATE SUBJECT THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART , BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SEPARATE STANDARDS AMENDMENT THAT WASOUT THERE AS PART OF THIS INITIAL PROPOSAL , THAT PROPOSAL DID SOME VERY , V ERY DIFFERENT THINGS THAN WHAT THIS PARTIC ULAR PROV ISION THAT IS INCLUDED IN HERE.

THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN?

THAT IS THE ONE THAT WAS STRICKEN BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOU WANT TO GO ON TO THE BA LLOT ISSUES.

THE SUMMARY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: TO THE SUMMARY .

THE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUMMARY ARE AS POSEDBY THE OONENTS, ARE THAT WE WERE INACCURATE AND MISLEADING IN USING THE TERM NONPARTISAN , AND THAT WASONE OF THEIR PR IME ATTACKS. WE BELIEV E WE ARE NOT. THE DICTIO NARY DEFINITIONS OF NONPARTISAN SAYS IT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY ANY ONE POLITICAL PART Y.THAT WAS A DIC TIONARY DEFINITION WE HAVE CITED IN OUR BRIEF.

WELL , IN THE LANGUAGE,YOU YOU SPEAK TO NONPARTISAN METHOD OF AOINTMENT.

UM-HUM .

WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE COMMISSION ITSELF , IT IS NONPARTISAN, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ME THOD?

WELL , THE METH OD IS IT GOES TO THE ISSUES OR THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENTTHAT SAY WE CANNOT HAVE PARTY OPERATIVES WITHIN A PARTY OF TIME WHO SERVE AS ELIGIBLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS THEFACT THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS COURT HAS BEEN GIVENTHE POWER IN THE AMENDMENT, TO AOINT THE THREE MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSION WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF E ITHER POLITICAL PARTY.

BUT AREN'T 80 PERCENT OF THE MEMBERS AO INTED THROUGH A PARTISAN METH OD?

THEY ARE AOINTED BIPARTISAN OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, YES. B UT, AGA IN, IT COULD BE , I WILL CONCEDE THAT IS THECASE, THAT THEY ARE AOINTED, BUT THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT WE ARE TALKINGABOUT IS TO TRY TO , BECAUSE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS , THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PARTISAN OPERATIVES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS PER IOD OF TIME THAT THEY CANNOT BE IN THOSE POSITIONS , PRIOR TO THEIR AOINTMENT.

SO MORE ACCURATELY , IT WOULD SAY ESTABLISHES A NONPARTISAN COMMISSION .

WELL , I THINK WE CAN QUIBBLE O VER MORE ACCURATE OR NOT , YOUR HONOR, BUT THE F ACT IS WE BELI EVE THAT THE LIMITATION OR THE PROCESS WE ARE DESCRIBING IS A NONPARTISAN PROCESS, AS OOSED TO DI RECT AOINTMENT OF ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF SPECIFIC PARTISAN IS OPERATIVES. -- PARTISAN SPRAFS . -- OPERATIVES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION IS THEQUESTION OF THE OATHS AND WHETHER THAT IS LIMITATION, ESPECIALLY AS TO ON THE CONGRESSIONAL SIDE WHETHER IT IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT.

WELL , EVEN AT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE SIDE , THE O A THS ARE LI MITATIONS ON WHO CAN AOINT OR WHO CAN SERVE. I F A PERSO N IS UNWILLING TO TAKE THE OATH, THEY CANNOT SERVE . WE DRAFTED IT THE WAY IT IS DRAFTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF AVOI DING THEQUALIFICATION ISSUE, BEC AUSE WE KNO W THAT WE CAN'T E FFECT THE QUALIF ICATIONS OF MEM BERS OF CONGRESS.

WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE , AND I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT , THEN HOW CAN YOU SAY IN THE SUMMARY THAT IT LIM ITS ?

IF SOMEONE IS UNWILLING TO TAKE THE OATH , THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SERVE.

WHAT IF SOMEBODY TAKES THE OATH AND VIOLATES IT?

WELL , I THINK THAT THAT , THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS WILL THAT PERS ON BE ABLE TO GET ON THE BALLOT IF THEY QUALIFY. THIS WILL NOT PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING THAT, BUT WE THINK IT IS A LIMI TATION AS OOSED TO A PRO HIBITION, B ECAUSE AS SUME THAT PEOPLE ARE GOIN G TO LIVE UP TO THE OATHS THEY HAVE TA KEN.

SO THE LIMITATION IS REALLY NOT ON S E EKING THEOFFICE. IT IS LIMITING WHO CAN SERVE SOUGHT COMMISSION.

AND, AGAIN, WE ASSUM E THAT -- SERVE ON THE COMMISSION.

AGAIN, WE ASSUME WHEN PEOPLE RAISE THEIR HAND TO TAKE AN OATH , WE ASSUME THAT THEY WILL UPHOLD THAT OATH AND WILL BE PERMITTED IN THEOFFICE. WE DON'T IN TEND TO RES TRICT.

BECAUSE OF THE JLC IN THE CONSTITUTION, YOU ARE INELIGIBLE TO SERVE FOR A TWO-YEAR PERI OD. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT INELIGIBILITY.THIS REALLY SPEAKS ABOUT LIMITING SEEKING OFFICE BUT THERE IS REALLY NO B INDING LIMITATION. THERE IS A MORAL LIMITATION BUT NOT --

WE HAVE RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF ADDING ADDI TIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONG RESSTHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO .

CAN WE , JUST I SAY YOUR TIME IS GETTING CLOSE HERE. CAN WE ADDR ESS THE ISSUE OF THE PETITION THAT WAS ACTUALLY SIGNED BY THE VOTERS , THE 600, 000 SOME-ODD SIGNATURES THAT YOU GO T. THE ARGU MENT IS BEING MADE HERE , THAT THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THIS MAY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED IN BELIEVING THEY WERE JUST SIG NING MULTIPLE COPIES OF ONE PETITION , AS OOSED T O THREE SEPARATE PETITIONS. AND IS THIS THE SAME PETITION THAT WAS GIVEN TOTHE SECRETARY OF STATE? THOSE TWO ISSUES.

THE TE XT OF THE PETITIONS , EACH OF THEM IS IDENTICAL TO THE TEX T THAT WAS AROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE. THERE IS NO CHAN GE TO ANYWORD IN THE TEXT OF THE PETITION. THE IN --

WERE THEY PUT TO GETHER THE SAME WAY?

THEY WERE PUT TOGETHER AND THEY HAD SOME INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FRONT. NOW, THAT ONLY AFFECTS SOME SELF THE PE TITIONS . ALL THE PETITION S THAT WERE AROVED , DIDN'T BASICALLY , WEREN'T THIS THREE-PACK THATYOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU . THEY WERE DOWNLOADABLE FROM A COMPUTER. WE HAD SINGLE PETITIONS THAT WERE OUT THERE AS WELL . BUT, AGAIN --

CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE YOUSUGGESTING THAT THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE CHALLENGED IN A CIRCUIT COURT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION? INTAU I DO HAVE , I MEAN THE O NES THAT SAY "SIGN ALL THREE PETITIONS AND MAIL THEM", AS OOSED TO THE ONETHAT WAS IN THE EVER GLADES CASE, W H ICH SAYS " SIGN ANY AND ALL", SEE M TO BE PROBLEMS.

IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT ISSUE O F WHETHER THERE W AS SOME KIND OF F R AUD COMMITTED UPON --

CHIE F JUSTICE: NOT FRAUD BUT WHETHER SOME ONE WAS LEDTO THIN K THAT THE SE ARE ALL--

IT IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT I N THIS PROCEEDING, IN TERMS OF SINGLE SUBJECT AND BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY.

HOW DID WE ADDRESS IT IN THE EVERGLADES CA SE? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE DIDIN FACT, HAVE AN ISSUE IN THE EVERGLADES CASE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITI ONS THAT WERE SIGNED HAD ACT UALLY BEEN CHANGED FROM THOSE THAT WERE AR OVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SO THIS COURT DID ADDRES S THAT ISSUE.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES. THE WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT , ITSELF, WAS CHANGED IN THE EVERGLADES CASE , BUT WHAT THEY SA ID , WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR DECISION, WAS EACH PROPOSAL ADDRESSES A SINGLE SUBJECT. EACH I S CL EARLY FREE STANDING, AND THE SIGNERS COULD SUORT OR REJECT EACH ONE OF THEM, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE HERE, TO O.

IF A V OTER ACTUALLY HADTHE PACK AGE WHERE THE THREEOF THEM ARE TOGE THER, ANDALL YOU SEE , REALLY, IS THETOP ONE , AND THE N YOU SEE A SIGNATURE LINE FOR THE SECOND ONE, AND THEN YOU SEEA SIGNATURE LINE FOR THETHIRD ONE , IT -- IS A VOTER REALLY ON NOTES IE S -ON NOTE ACE THAT THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE PETITIONS HERE, AS OOSED TO SIGNING THREE COPIES OF THE SAME PETITION?

THERE ARE A LOT OF EVIDENTIARY QUESTIONS IN YOUR ISSUE, YOUR H O NOR , AND OUR ANSWER IS Y ES, IT IS , BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE PETITIONS AND THEY H AD TO SIGN IT THREE TIMES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE IN YOUR REDPULINGTSBUTTAL -- REBUTTAL, IF YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS A D UDLY GOODLETTE , AND I AM WITH THE FIRM OF GOODLETTE , CO LEMAN AND JOHNSON , TOGETHER WITH GEORGE MORRIS AND THE FIRM OF ALAN G ROBINSON , AND THE HONORABLE SPEA KER OF THE HOUSE ALLAN B E NSE .

YOU ARE GOING TO D I VIDE USUAL TIM E?

YES, WE ARE , CHIEFJUSTICE.I AM GOING TO SPEND TEN MINUTES TALKING ABOUT SINGLE SUBJECT ISSUES AND THEN MR . GEORGE IS G OING TO SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT THE REMAINING AND MR . MIGUEL DE GRANDY IS GOING TO IT BE AEAR ON BEHALF OF THREE CONGRESSMEN AND CONGRESSWOMAN AND HE IS YIELDING HIS TIME TO M E , AND I WILL MAKE ARGUMENTS ON HITS P ETITION AS WELL AS M Y OWN -- ON HIS PETITION, AS WELL AS MY OWN. THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED THAT ANY ANALYSIS WITH REFERENCE TO A SINGLE SUBJECT MUST BE GIN WITH THE QUESTION WH Y WAS THE SINGLE SUBJECT CL AUSE PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRSTPLACE. AND THE ONLY PROPER WAY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, IS BY LOOKING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICIES THAT UNDER LIE THE ARTICLE XI SECTION 3. THAT IS , OF COURSE , AS THE COURT HAS ALRE ADY RECOGNIZED , TO PRO TECT AGAINST LOG R OLLING, TO PROT ECT AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS TO MORE THAN ONE B RANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AND, OF COURSE, TO PROTECT AGAINST THE PRECIPITOUS AND CATACLYSMIC CHANGES IN THE FUNDAMENTAL OR ORGANIC LAW. I WANT TO STA RT WITH THE PRO TECTION AGAINST PRECIPITOUS AND THE CHANGES IN THE FUNDAMENTAL OR ORGANIC LA W AS , OF COURSE , RECOGNIZED IN THE SAVE OUR EVERGLADES CASE. NOTHING IS MORE FUND AMENTAL TO FLORIDA'S ORG ANIC LAW THA N THE CAREFULLY C RAFTED SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. THIS INITIATIVE THAT IS PROPOSED, DESTROYS IN OUR JUDGMENT, THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT PROTECTS THE AORTIONMENT PROCESS . AND IMPORTANTLY, AS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PROCESS , THE , AS WAS AOINTED OUT IN A QUESTION EARLIER , MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE, B Y YOU AND JUSTICE WELLS , THE PLENARY P OWER OF CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IS S FOUND IN ARTICLE I SECTION 4 OF THE UNITED STATES CON -- IS FOUND IN ARTICLE I SECT ION 4 OF THEUNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, WHICH DELE GATES THAT T O STATE LEGISLATURES. IT IS ENA CTED BY -- DOES THAT MAKE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE, OR IS THAT AN ISSUE THAT, SIMILAR TO WHEN PEOPLE PASS THE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TERM LIMITATIONS , AND EVENTUALLY IT WAS SAID THAT THIS AMENDMENT COULD NOT BE ALICABLE TO CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS. IS THIS THE KIND OF YOU SHALL EW THAT IS R AISED - - ISSUE THAT IS RAISED LATER , OR DOES I T REALLY GO TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A SINGLE SUBJEC T?

WE BELI EVE IT GOES TO BOTH. IT GOES CERTAINLY , TO THE SUBJECT OF , TO THE MATTER OFWHETHER THERE IS A SINGLE SUBJECT, BECAUS E WE DO HAVE DIFFERING SU CKS. WE HAVE LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING WHICH IS DONE BY J OINT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND WE HAVE CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING, WHICH IS DONE B Y GENERALLAW. AND, OF COURSE, IN THE CONGRESSIONAL REDIST RICT , THERE IS THE ADDI TIONAL B RANCH OF GOVERNMENT, W HICH IS THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO V ETO A CONGRESSIONAL P L AN. WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE, IS THAT IT NOT ONLY DOES IT ELIMINATE AND WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THECREATION OF A COMMISSION IS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE, BUT IMPORTANTLY , IT , A LS O , ELIMINATES IN CONG RESSIONAL REDISTRICT, THE ROL E OF THE GOVERNOR TO VETO THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR TO VETO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ON THAT ONE , IT SEEMS THAT ANYTHING THAT BECOMES ENSHRINED IN THE CONS TITUTION, WILL E ITHER LIMIT, SAY , THE COURT'S ROLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARAMETERS ARE OF THE CHALLENGE , BUT , ALSO , IT WILL LIMIT THE GOVERNOR'S VETO POWER , AND IS THAT , ITHINK THAT THAT SAME ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE IN ALMOST ANY CASE WHE RE THE GOVERNOR HAD A VETO , WILL LOSE A VETO.IS THAT THE KIND OF PRECIPITOUS , CATACLYSMIC CHANGE IN GOV ERNMENT THAT , REALLY , IS A SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION ?

Y ES. MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE , I BELIEVE IT IS , BECAUSE IT , IT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN THECHECKS AND BALA NCES. IT ELIM INATES THE BALANCE OF A GOVERNOR'S VETO OF A LEGISLATIVE AC TION.

YOU D O W ONDER HOW , I F, I MEAN WE LE ARN , THIS COURT LEARNED IN 2000 , THAT , WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS PL ENARY POWER , THAT THE U N ITED STATES SUPREME COURT FEELS THAT THAT ME ANS THAT POWER IS ONLY WITH THE LEGISLATURE ! NOT EVEN IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION. AND SO WHERE DOES THE GOVERNOR COME IN TO CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING, IF IT IS THE PLENARY POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REDISTRICT?

BECAUSE , JUSTICE WELLS, THE LEGISLATURE DOES THAT BY GENERAL LAW. AND THE GOVE RNOR HAS THE VETO POWER UNDER AR TICLE I II SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, ALTHOUGH THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION , IT IS AN EX ECUTIVE POWER AND THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN DONE IN FLORIDA.I THINK IT ALSO TOUCHES U PON , IMPORTANTLY , THE SUBJECT OF MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS ANOTHERREASON THAT THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT LIMITATION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO YOU WOULD SAY, THEN , THE LOGICAL RESULT OF YOUR AR GUMENT , WOULD BE NO MATTER HOW NARROW LY CRAFTED THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS, IF THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE WANTED TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF REDISTRI CTING IN ORDER TO TA KE IT OUT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HA ND S WHEN IT C AME TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE , JUST LEAVE THE CONGRESSIONAL PART OUT OF IT , THAT THEY WO ULD BE PRECLUDED FROM DOING THAT, OR COULD IT BE NARR OWLY D RAWN , I F IT WAS JUST A NONPARTISAN STATE LEGISLATIVE REAORTIONMENT COMMISSION?

MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE , I CAN I THINK IT COULD BE DONE. -- I THINK IT COULD BE DONE. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NAR ROWLY REDRAWN. I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO DO IT WITH THIS PETITION PROCESS, BECAUSE OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT LIMITATION.I THINK IT CAN BE D ONE IN A CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION. I THINK IT COULD BE DONE BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. OTHER ME THODS OF AMENDING THE CONSTI TUTION. HOWEVER , I THINK IT COULD BE DONE BY A PETITION INI TIATIVE AND COMPLY WITH THE SINGLE SUBJECT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT , HOWEVER , FOR THEM TO ST EP , FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, TO NOTHAVE A JUDICIAL ROLE IN AOINTING THE MEMBERS AS THIS IN ITIATIVE DOES , AND I THI NK IT IS , ALSO , IM PORTANT TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION IS DR AFTED , IN AOINTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE INTEGRITY AND TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF A CON FLICT WITH THE JUDICIARY, IF THEY ARE TO BE AOINTED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DOESN'TTHAT GO TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL AND HOW IT IS D RAFTED AS O P POSEED TO A SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION?

I AM SORR Y?

CHIEF JUSTICE: DOESN'T IT REALLY GO TO THE MER ITS OF WHETHER IT IS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT , AS OOSED TO WHE THERIT IS A SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION? AND AS YOU KNOW , WE DO NOT GET INTO THE MERITS OF WHETHER THIS IS A GOOD ID EAOR NOT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT , BUT IDO THINK THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COURT AT THE REVIEW STAGE OF WHERE WE ARE RIGH T NOW IN THIS PROCESS, TO ENSURE THAT THE SINGLE SUBJECT LIMITATION IS NOT VIOLATED , AND TO ENSURE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMISSION IS PRESERVED. I GUE SS MY POINT THERE , IS THAT I HAVE RECOGNIZED AND , OF COURSE , IN RECENT LY THE CASE OF THE HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY CASE THAT, THIS COURT IN DICATED THAT MER ELY E FFECT -- AFFECTING MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS IN SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE , AND AS THIS PROPOSAL SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERS OR SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IT DOES STAND THAT TE ST.

I WANTED TO ASK BEFORE YOUR TIME IS UP , OO SING COUNSEL MR . HERON SAYS THAT THE SINGLE SUBJECT O F THENUMBER OF DIST RICTS FORSENATE AND LEGISLATURE IS THE SAME SUBJECT AS THE COMPOSITION OF THECOMMISSION. SO FAR YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THAT.

THANK YOU , JUSTICE CANTERO . I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT , AND IT IS CL EARLY S E PARATE SUBJECTS. THE COMPOSITIO N OF THECOMMISSION HIS SON SUBJECT , AND THE ABILITY TO -- OF THE COMMISSION IS ONE SUBJECT AND THE ABILITY TO COMPOSE THOSE COMMISSIONS IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE SUBJECT AND I T IS ENFORCEABLE BY LAW , SO IT I S MY INTERPRETATION THAT TH OSE ARE INDEED SEPARATE SUBJECTS AND THE STANDARDS ARE SEPARATE SUBJECTS AND THAT IS WHY THEY HAD A SEPARATE PETITIONTHAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE THREW OUT THAT DID NOT PERMIT TO GO FORWARD , AND I THINK THAT IS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUBJECTS EMBODIED IN THIS INI TIATIVE, AND I THINK MY TIME IS UP.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOU AREUSING , YOU HAVE ABOUT ANOTHER MINUTE.

THAT IS FINE. BUT I DO THINK IT I S MULTIPLE. THERE ARE MU LTIPLE SUBJECTS IN THAT REGARD. LET ME, ALSO, SAY THAT THE , THESE ARE CHANGES, THE STANDARDS BEING CONTEMPLATED H ERE ARE CHANGING , AND ITHINK THAT THAT IS NOT ONLY A SINGLE SUBJECT ISSU E, BUT THAT IS , ALSO, A MISLEADING ISSUE THAT RELATES TO WHAT MR. RICHARD IS GOIN G TO BE DISCUSSING WITH RESPECT TO THE MISLEA DING BAL LOT TI TLE AND SUMMARY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT WHERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE QUES TION OF THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT? WHAT CHANGES FROM WHAT IS THE CUR RENT LAW?

WELL, WHAT CHANGE S IS CURRENTLY WE COULD HAVE MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS AND WE HAVE HAD MULTIMEMBERDISTRICTS, AND THE OTHER CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THE NOTION OF VENT CONTIGUOUS. WHAT DOES VENT REALLY MEAN -- WHAT DOES CONVENIENT REALLY MEAN , THAT IS A NEWSUBJECT , AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT , WITHOUT HAVING THE EDIFICATION OF WHAT WOULDHAVE BEEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT , CREATES EVEN M ORE CONFUSION GOING FORWARD FORTHE VOTERS IN THIS CASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW YOU ARE INTO HIS TIME.

LET ME YIEL D THE BALANCEOF MY TIME. THANK YOU .

MAY IT PLEA SE THE COURT . EXCUSE ME.I AM BARRY RICHARD. I AM COU NSEL FOR SENATORS C LARY, SE BESTA AND LAW SON . THE TERM NONPARTISAN IS DEFINED IN STATUTE. THERE IS NO NEED TO L OOK TOA DICTIO NARY DEFINITION, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE CONSISTENT. NOT ONLY IS IT DE FINED IN STATUTE.IT IS USED IN AT LE AST 18 STATUTORY PROVISION INS THEFLORIDA CO DE, AND IN THOSE PROVISIONS AND IN ITS COMMON USAGE IN ITS HISTORIC AND CONSISTENT USAGE, IT HAS ALWAYS MEANT ONE THIN G AND O NLY ONE THING , AND THAT IS THAT IN THE SE LECTION PROCESS , WHEREVER IT MAY BE, THAT PARTIES AND PARTY AFFILIATION PL AYS NO ROLE.

SO DOES THAT MA KE THIS COURT A PARTISAN B ODY WHEN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION --

THIS COURT A PARTISAN BODY? WELL, NOT BY FLORIDA DEFINITION, BECAUSE THIS COURT I S SELECTED BY A PROCESS THAT EXPRESSLY AVOIDS PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE SEL ECTION PROC ESS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: RIGHT NOWWE HAVE THE GOVERNORS AOINTED TO THE NOMINATING COMMISSION, AND THAT IS PURELY A PARTISAN PROCESS. YOU ARE AR GUING HERE THAT BECAUSE PARTISANSHIP GOES INTO WH O IS BEING SELECTED,THAT THE PROCESS REMAINS PARTISAN, AND THAT WOULD M AKE OUR JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION PROCESS PARTISAN.

ACTU ALLY , WE ARE NOT T ALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS PARTISAN. WE ARE T ALKING ABOUT WHETHEROR NOT THE SUMMARY IS MISLEADING. EXCUSE ME. THERE IS NO USE OF THE WORD NONPARTISAN WITH RE GARD TO THE AOINTMENT OF JUSTICES TO FILL OPEN POSITIONS . BUT WHEN JUDGES SEEK OF FICE , THEY ARE NON PARTISAN ELECTIONS , AND WHAT MAKES THEM NONPARTISAN IS NO PARTY NOMINATES A CANDIDATE FORTHE OFFICE OF A JUDGE, ANDTHE JUDGE CANNOT RUN ON A PARTY TICKET. THAT IS WHAT NONPARTISANMEANS.IT IS WHAT IT AL WAYS MEANT , AND SO WHEN THIS BALLOT SUMMARY SAYS, AS JUSTICEBELL NOTED , THAT THIS IS A NONPARTISAN METHOD OF SELECTION, WHAT IT TELLS THE V OTERS IS PARTIES PLA Y NO PART IN THE SELECTION METHODOLOGY. NOT HING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUT H! THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR PARTY LEADERSHIP AND PARTY CAUCUSES TO SELECT T WELVE OF THE 1 5 MEMB ERS, AND IT I S MATERIAL . THERE MAY BE M A NY VOTERS OUT THERE THAT WOULD PREFER THAT THE EN TIRE LEGISLATURE DR AW THE LINES THAN A COMMISSION , MOST OF W HICH I S SELECTED BY A HAND FUL O F PARTY LEADERS, SO WHAT WE ARE TA LKING ABOUT , I DO N'T , THIS, AS FAR AS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY IS CONCERNED, IN MY VIEW, THIS CAN BE TO TALLY PARTISAN, BUT YOU CAN'T TELL THE VOTERS THAT IT IS NONPAR TISAN, ANDTHAT IS THE ISSUE YOU HERE. THE SE COND ISSUE IS THE QUESTION OF -- THE ISSUE HERE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE QUESTION OF THE DISCONNECT.

I AM SORRY , BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT, YOUR ARG UMENT IS IF THE SUMMARY SAID IT ESTABLISHES A NONPARTISANCOMMISSION, THAT WOULD NOTBE MISLEADING.

WELL , I DON'T KNOW. I LEA RNED LONG AG O NOT TO A SSUME A BU RDEN I DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME , AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD REFER TO THE COMMISSION AS NOT , I WOULD S AY THE TERM NONPARTISAN IN MY , TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HA S NEVER BEEN USED TO DESCRIBE A BO DY IN FLORIDA LAW . NOR IS IT COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE A BODY IN OR DINARY LANGUAGE. IT IS USED TO DES CRIBE A SELECTION PROCESS , SO W E DON'T REFER TO THE LEGISLATURE. WE DON'T REFER TO A COURT. WE DON'T REFER TO ANYBODY AS PARTISAN OR NONPARTISAN. WE REFER TO THE SELECTION PROCESS.AND THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES, AND IT HAS A SPECIFIC MEAN ING, AND IT IS QUITE THE OOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HA ENS HERE.

ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SIG NATURE ISSUE ? OR IS SOMEONE ELSE?

THE TRIFFLE BALLOT? YES , YOUR H ONOR.

I HAVE A QU ESTION THERE AS TO WHERE THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION COM ES FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT ISSUE. THE CONSTITUTION IN AR TICLE V , SAYS THAT WE ARE TO REVIEW THESE PETI TIONS THATARE SUBMITTED TO US BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL LAW , AND THE GENERAL LAW , IT AEARS TO BE FROM 16.061 F LORIDA STATUTES AND THAT , REALLY, LIMITS US TO A REVIEW OF THE , G IVE AN ADVISORY OPINION REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE OF THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RE VISION AND THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED BALLOT TI TLE AND SUBSTANCE WITH SECTION 101.161, BUT WHERE DO WE GET OUR JURISDICTION?

YOUR HONOR , I THINK THAT IS PRECISELY WHERE YOU GET IT. NOTHING IN SECTION 101.161SAYS THAT THE BALLOT , T IT LE AND SUMMARY CAN BE MISLEADING AS IT AEARS ON THE PETITION. IT DOESN'T LIMIT IT --

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE THREE SIGNATURE PROBLEM.

YES, YOUR HONOR. THE ROPE THAT IT IS MISLEADING IS BECAUSE THE ONLY VI SIBLE SUMMARY THAT THE VOTERS SA W IN THIS CASE WAS A SUMMARY THAT NOT ONLY IS NOT THE ONE THAT WILL BEON THE BALLOT. IT IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BALLOT , AND THAT IS THE ONLY SUMMARY THAT THEY SAW , UNLESS THEY D UG DOWN T O THE THIRD PAGE , AND WHAT THIS COURT HAS GOT TO DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOTTHAT IS MISLEADING , PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT IN THIS IN STANCE , IT SAID SIGN ALL THREEPETITIONS. IT GAVE THEM NO INDICATION OF THE FACT THAT THE OTHER TWO PAGES WERE CA LLING FOR DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS .

I REAL IZE THAT THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN EVERG LADES THAT THIS COURT GOT INTO THAT , BUT IT SE EMS , MY CONCERN IS THAT SEEMS TO ME ONE STEP REMO VED FROM WHAT WE USUALLY DO IN THESE CASES, WHICH IS TO REVIEW THELANGUAGE O F THE BALLOT SUMMARY , TO COME TO A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IS MISLEADING NOT THE METHODOLOGY OF GATHERING SIGNATURES.

YES , BUT WE ARE NOTTALKING ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY HERE OF GATHERING SIGNATURES, I THINK.WHA T WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE ONLY SUMMARYPRESENTED TO THE VOTER , IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE VOTER IS BEING PRESENTED IN THIS AMENDMENT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT ITSEEMS TO ME AT LEAST FROM WHAT MR . HERRO N IS SAYING IS THAT THERE MAY B E ISSUES OF F ACT REGARD ING THAT, THAT PETITIONS WERE USED , SIGNATURES WERE OBTAINED THAT WAY , AND S O THAT HOW WOULD W E , WE WOULD BE, REALLY, MAKING , GIVING AN ADVISORY OPINION ON SOMETHING THAT THE ATTORNEY G ENERAL HASN'T ASKED US TO GIVE, AND WHERE THERE ARE POTENTIAL FACTUAL DISPUTES , SO IN THIS SI TUATION , WHYWOULDN'T THIS BE, IF THEREIS AN ATTACK ON IT , WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE DONE THROUGH THE DECLAR ATORY JUDGMENT PROCESS.

WELL, I BELIEVE IT IS UNDISPUTED AND I THINK FROM , AS I HEARD H IM -- AND I THINK MR. , AS I HEARD HIM , MR. HERRON CONCEDED THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THESE BALLOTS WERE AND ENDED TO GETHER IN TRIPLICATE JUST AS THEY ARE IN OUR AE NDIX, WITH THE TOP ONE BEING THE ONE THAT IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BALLOT , AND THE ISSUE THAT THIS COURT HAS GOT TO DECIDE AT THIS POINT IS WHETHER OR NOTIT IS GOING TO PERMIT THIS TO HAEN , WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST THERE IS NO , THERE IS NOTHING IN 101.161. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE OF STATUTORY CONSTR UCTION OF PUBLIC PO LICY THAT WOULDSUGGEST THAT THIS COURT OUGHT TO PE RMIT VOTERS TO BE MISLED AT THE STAGE AT WH ICH THE PETITION IS DISTRIBUTED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF IT SAID SIGN ANY OR ALL THREE PETITIONS , WOULD THAT BE SATISFACTORY? IN OTHER WORDS BECAUSE E ACH OF THE PETITIONS ARE EXACTLY AS THEY WERE A ROVED BY THESECRETARY OF STATE. YOU AGREE WITH THAT , INDIVIDUALLY , THE FORM IS CORRECT.

YES. CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO , AND THIS IS WHERE I AM CONC ERNED AS WELL , AS TO WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR FORMAT COMPLIES W ITH WHAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE REQU ESTED , OR AR OVED , AND I AM NOT SURE , AGAIN , J UST WHETHER IT IS NOTSOMETHING THAT IS SORT OF LENDS ITSE LF TO SOME F A CTUAL QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHE R THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD HAVE AROVED IT IN T HIS FORMAT OR ALL THE MY RIAD OF QUESTIONS THAT AR ISE FROM THAT.

WELL , OF COURSE , BUT WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH IS A FORM WITH A SUMMARY THAT WE KNOW IS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND WE K NOW HOW IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC , AND I BE LIEVE THAT, IF THE , I AM NOT SAY ING YOU CAN N EVER USE A TRIPLICATE . I THINK IF THE PU BLIC ON THEFORM , BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT IT MUST BE ON THE SUMMARY ITSE LF. IT CAN'T BE BY SOME OU TSIDE SOURCE. I F THE TOP PAGE OF THAT PETITION GIVES SUFFICIENTLY B OLD NOTICE THAT YOU ARE --

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE , AND WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS THAT AS YOU WELL KNOW AND LITERALLY PROBABLY NO W AT LEAST DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF OP ENING PARAGRAPHS OF OUR OPINIONS IN THESE INITIATIVES THAT AREPRESENTED TO US, WE SAY THAT OUR JURISDICTION IS VERY NARROW. WE HAVE TWO ISSUES TO DECIDE IN OUR JURISDICTION. THAT IS THE SINGLE SUBJECT , ALL RIGHT , AND THE N THE ACCURACY OF THE BALLOT SUMMARY. AND WE HA MMER AWAY AT THAT CONSISTENTLY, SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT , REALLY , A SEPARATE PROCESS , AS FAR AS HOW THIS GOT TO US AND THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROCESS . AND IT MAY WELL BE THAT THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS ISSUES AS HAVE BEEN AR GUED IN THE BRIE FS AND POINTED OUT HERE ABOUT THAT , BUT THOSE ARE NOT ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IN TERMS OF THE SINK HE SUBJECT AND -- SINGLE SUBJECT AND THE ACCURACY OF THE BALLOT SUMMARY. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE COMING F ROM .

I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE IT IS SUFFICIENTLY BEF ORE YOUAND THIS I S A OORTUNE TIME TO SEND A MESS AGE. IF I MIS TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO REFER TO THE F INAL ISSUE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THOUGHTYOU WERE GOING TO SAY IT WAS AN OORT UNE TIME TO CONCLUDE.

IT IS IF YOUR HONOR TELLSME THAT IT IS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOUWANT TO T AKE ONE MORE MINUTE.

I ONLY WANTED TO SAY ONE MORE THING, WHICH WAS THELAST I WERE ISSUE , THE -- THE LAST ISSUE, THE ONE REGARDING THE OATH , AND JUSTICE BELL POINTED OUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS AS PECT OF THIS IS THAT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF REALLY DOE SN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS.THE ONLY THING THE AMENDMENTSAYS IS THAT A CONDITION OF SERVING ON THE COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT ONE TA KE AN O ATH. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A LIMITATION UPON YOUR ABILITYTO RUN FOR OF FICE , I N ADDITION, OF CO URSE , IS THAT A LL IT REQUIR ES IS THAT ONETAKE AN OATH. IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT YOU FROM RUNNING. I CAN THINK O F FEW THINGS A S MISLEADING TO THE VOTER AS T ELLING THE VOTER THAT , IF YOU SERVE ON THIS COMMIS SION YOU ARE LIMITED BY THE AMENDMENT AND YOUR ABILITY TO SE EK OFFICE FOR A PER IOD OF YEARS AFTERWARDS , WHEN THE AMENDMENT DOESN'T EVEN S PEAK TO SEEKING OFFICE. THA NK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. HERRON, REBUTTAL.

MAY IT PLEA SE THE COURT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE THAT JUSTICE CANTERO RAISED AND MR . R ICHARD JUST ADDRESSED , THIS ISSUE ABOUT MUL TIPLE SUBJECTS DEALINGWITH THE STANDARDS , WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS COURT WOULD CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE IN THE LIMITED CASINOS CASE , THAT SAYS THAT AL THOUGH THE PETITION CONTA INS DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE NUMBER , SIZE, LOCA TION AND T YPE O F FACILITIES, WE FIND THAT SUCH DETAILS ONLY SERVE TO PROVIDE THE S COPE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INITIATIVE PETITIONS. THESE FEAT URES PROPERLY CONSTITUTE MATT ERS DIRECTLY AND LOGI CALLY CONNECTED TO THE SUBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT. THAT IS HOW WE V IEW SUBJECT PARAGRAPH A. THEY ARE MATTERS THAT FILL IN THAT MAKE IT COMPLETE THAT ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF HAVING A NONPARTI SAN --

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS B EEN MA DE HERE , IS THAT PRESENTLY YOU CAN HAVE MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS, AND THIS PETITION WOULD LIMIT THE COMMISSION TO HAVING SINGLE MEMBER DISTRIC TS. D OES THAT TAKE THAT , NOW , INTO YET AN OTHER SUBJECT MATTER?

WELL , I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THE ISSUE THERE IS THAT WE ARE NOT HI DING THEBALL WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE M EMBER DISTRICTS HERE. THE TITLE CLEARLY SAYS WE ARE GOING TO DO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS . AS A DRAFTER , I ONLY HAVE 75 WORDS THAT I CAN DEAL WITH. IF I HA D THE UNLIMITED ABILITY LIKE THE LEGISLATURE DOES, I COU LD PROB ABLY CRAFTA TITLE THAT DEALS WITH EVERY SPECIFIC ISSUE RAISED.IF I HAD ADDRESSED ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT THE OONENTS SAID I N EEDED TO ADDRESS, I WOULD HAVE NE EDED MUCH MORE THAN 75 WORDS , PROBABLY 300 OR 400 , AND IN THIS CASE I DON'T THINK WE ARE HIDING THE BALL. WE ARE TELLING PE OPLE UP FRONT THAT WE ARE GOING TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ANOTHER THING THAT WAS WEIGHS ED -- THAT WAS RAISED AND I AM LOOKING AT IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE 75-WORD LIMITATION IS SIGNIFICANT , AND WHEN YOU ARE LO OKING AT SOMETHING AS SIGNIFICANT A S WHAT THIS WOULD BE DO ING, THAT BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT, AND THAT IS WHEN YOU ASK THEQUESTION IS TOO M UCH BEING DONE IN ONE AMENDMENT. VENT CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY. -- CONVENIENT CONTIGUOUS TER TORY. CONVENIENT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND IS IT A RESTRICTION THAT NOWHERE AEARS IN THE SUMMARY, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD ISSUES ABOUT HOW SOME OF THESE DISTRICT S GO AND ARE CONNECTED BY LAKE ON OKEECHOBEE - - LAKE OKEECHOBEE. IS THAT A CONVENIENT DISTRICT?

THAT ISSUE ABOUT S NAKING DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH IN COMPACTNESS WHICH THIS COURT HAS NOTED IN ITS O P INIONS RELA TING TO THERE IS NO WORD CONVENIENT --

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS CONVENIENT USED I N THE PR IOR PACKAGE?

CONVENIENT IS NOT USED PRIOR. AS THIS COURT TOOK NOTE OF IN YESTERDAY'S M A RRIAGE AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY THE COURT IN THIS QUESTION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT TWO THINGS THAT ARE TRYING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED HERE THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOU GH THAT , IS ONE DEALING WITH THE PROCESS BY WHI CH THE AORTIONMENT WILL OCCUR, AND THE OTHER ON WHAT ARE THE REST RICTIONS ON THE REDISTRICTING PROP OSAL . IT SEEMS TO ME THAT , IF YOU, IF THE MORE YOU GET THAT IT IS CODIFYING O R CONSTITUTIONALLY CODIFYING SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS AND , ALSO , CONVENIENT AND CONTIGUOUS, THAT ARE NOW INTO SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT EN OUGH THAT IT MAYMAY BE A SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION.

AND, AGAIN , Y OUR HONOR --

CHIEF JUSTICE: I DO N'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO T HAT. I AM SHOWING MY CONCERN.

I THINK STANDARDS, INCLUDING STANDARDS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THESEPROVISIONS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIOL ATION OFTHE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE. I THINK IT IS NATURALLY AND LOGICALLY CONNECTED AND CANBE VIEWED A S PART OF THE WHOLE . THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH .

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE COURT WILL TA KE, FI RST TAKE THIS MATTER UN DER ADVISEMENT AND WILL, HERE WE THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR VALUABLE INPUT ON THIS ISSUE . WE WILL TAKE A , JUST A MINUTE BREAK SO THAT THOSE THAT ARE NOT WANTING TO HE ARTHE NE XT CASE CAN DE PART.

MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.