CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT.
THE FIRST CASE THIS MORNING IS
THE ADVISORY OPINION TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND AS I
UNDERSTAND THE PARTIES HAVE
REQUESTED TEN MINUTES TO
EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION.
THAT'S CORRECT.
LOUIS HUBENER
WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
AMENDMENT.
MR. STEPHEN GRIMES WILL ARGUE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT.
THESE ARE ALWAYS THE
TOUGHEST CASES, WHEN YOU HAVE
NO OPPOSITION.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I AM STEPHEN GRIMES, ALONG WITH
SUSAN KELSEY, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION AND
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION,
WHO ARE THE SPONSORS OF THIS
PETITION.
WHEN THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT WAS
ENTERED INTO BY THE STATE
ORIGINALLY, A PRETTY
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY
FROM THOSE PAYMENTS WAS USED
FOR A PROGRAM TO EDUCATE THE
PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY THE YOUTH,
AGAINST THE USE OF TOBACCO.
IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRED
SOME MONEY TO BE USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE, BUT AS TIME PASSED,
THE AMOUNT DWINDLED AND LAST
YEAR IT WAS DOWN TO ABOUT A
MILLION DOLLARS, AND THAT WAS
THE REASON FOR THIS PETITION.
THE CHIEF PURPOSE --
JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT
AT THE INCEPTION?
HOW MUCH WAS BEING SPENT ON
THIS EDUCATION CAMPAIGN?
ORIGINALLY, THIS IS, AS I
UNDERSTAND, AROUND $45 MILLION,
ORIGINALLY, I THINK WAS SPENT
FROM THE EARLY TOBACCO
SETTLEMENT.
SO YOUR PETITION WOULD
REQUIRE AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF
THAT AMOUNT TO NOW BE SPENT ON
EDUCATION?
15 PERCENT OF THE CURRENT.
IT IS TIED TO THE PAYMENT THAT
WAS MADE, I THINK, LAST YEAR.
YOU MEAN 15 PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT
THAT THE STATE GETS FROM THE
TOBACCO COMPANIES.
YES.
YES.
THAT'S RIGHT.
YES.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS
TOBACCO EDUCATION, AS I
MENTIONED, A PROGRAM DIRECTED
DIRECTLY TOWARD YOU.
THAT IS THE CHIEF PURPOSE AND
THE ONLY PURPOSE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: MR. GRIMES,
I THINK THAT IT CERTAINLY SEEMS
AS IF FOR A SINGLE SUBJECT,
THAT IT MEETS THAT
REQUIREMENT.
THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I WOULD
HAVE IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU EXPLAIN HOW TYING IT INTO
15 PERCENT, HOW THIS IS
DISSIMILAR TO THE ADVISORY
OPINION ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR
ADEQUATE PUBLIC EDUCATION,
WHICH HAD THE 40 PERCENT.
YES, MA'AM.
THE --
CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THAT WAS
STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURT.
YES.
THE REASON THAT WAS STRUCK
DOWN, IT TIED, ONE, THE 40
PERCENT, THE FIGURE THAT THE 40
PERCENT WAS DIRECTED TOWARD WAS
DIRECTED TOWARD 40 PERCENT OF
THE WHOLE BUDGET, AND AS THE
COURT WOULD EXPLAIN, UNDER
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND I THINK
THE REASON IT WAS STRUCK DOWN,
WAS THAT THEORY THAT YOU CAN'T
IMPACT, MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL
IMPACT OVER MORE THAN ON BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT, AND THEY SAID
THAT BY TAKING 40 PERCENT OUT
OF THE BUDGET AND THE BUDGET
VARIES EVERY YEAR, IT COULD NOT
HELP BUT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
IMPACT ON ALL THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.
HERE IT IS TIED TO THESE
SPECIFIC PAYMENTS.
IT DOESN'T AFFECT ALL,
THE JUDICIAL AND THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCHES.
IT HAS A MINIMAL EFFECT, I
GUESS, ON THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH, BUT WITH RESPECT TO IT
IS MINIMAL, IN THE SENSE THAT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 15 PERCENT
OF JUST TOBACCO PAYMENTS.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
WHOLE BUDGET.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT IN MORE
DETAIL IN THE BRIEF, BECAUSE WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT MIGHT BE A
QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT IS
CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON THAT
BASIS.
MR. GRIMES THERE, IS ONE
ASPECT OF THIS AMENDMENT THAT
APPEARS TO BE A SELF-AMENDING
PROVISION, AND THAT IS THAT IT
IS, IT MAY CHANGE, BASED UPON
THE CDC AND WHAT PROGRAMS THEY
MAY CHANGE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL TYPE OF
PROVISION THAT IS CONTAIN ANY
TYPE OF SIMILAR AMENDING
PROCESS, AND IS THAT A CONCERN,
OR SHOULD IT BE A CONCERN,
SOMETHING THAT WE THRUST INTO
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
THINK THAT THIS WILL
AUTOMATICALLY AMEND ITSELF,
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
THOSE WILL BE DOWN THE ROAD,
AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON
THAT?
WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THE
PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS
SIMPLY TO PROVIDE FOR TOBACCO
EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
IT IS TIED TO USING THE CDC
STANDARDS AND SUCH.
IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS MORE
DESIRABLE, BECAUSE AS TIME GOES
ON, PEOPLE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE
EFFECT OF TOBACCO ON HEALTH,
AND THE CDC KEEPS DOING
RESEARCH ON THIS, AND THE
PROGRAM, THEN, IS FLEXIBLE
ENOUGH TO MEET THE EMERGING
BETTER RESEARCH AND DIRECTED
TOWARD IT.
THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST A
FRAMEWORK.
THE MONEY THAT IS TIED, IS
THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION HOW
MUCH MONEY WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT, BECAUSE OF THE
PERCENTAGE OF THESE PAYMENTS,
AND OF COURSE THE LEGISLATURE
WILL HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM.
IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THAT
WOULD BE TRUE, BUT THIS IS JUST
A FRAMEWORK, AND IF YOU TIED IT
TO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW AND NEW
RESEARCH DEVELOPED THAT THERE
IS NEW WAYS TO, AND NEW
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND
SUCH THAT AS THAT THAT WOULD BE
MORE HELPFUL, IT WOULD BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, BUT I DON'T
THINK THAT AFFECTS WHAT YOU PUT
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THAT
WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.
WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS IN THE
BRIEF.
IT, THERE IS NO LOG ROLLING
INVOLVED.
THE, IT DOESN'T AFFECT OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
WHERE WE HAVE TO POINT THEM OUT
ON.
AS I MENTIONED, IT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT AND ONLY THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN A MINIMAL WAY.
THE BALLOT SUMMARY, I THINK,
IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE PUT AS MUCH DETAIL AS WE
COULD, WITHIN 75 WORDS, AND I
SUBMIT THAT, AND, OF COURSE, AS
THE COURT KNOWS AND AS THE
COURT HAS SAID MANY TIMES, THAT
THE COURT IS OBLIGATED TO
APPROVE THESE AMENDMENTS,
UNLESS THEY ARE CLEARLY AND
CONCLUSIVELY DEFECTIVE, AND WE
SUBMIT THAT IT IS NOT EVEN
CLOSE IN THIS RESPECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU DO NOT,
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WAS FILED, AND YOU DON'T
QUARREL WITH THAT.
WE DID NOT CHALLENGE THAT,
YES, SO IF THE COURT HAS NO
OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD REMIND
THE COURT FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH,
THAT THERE IS A NEW
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN
THERE NOW, THAT SAYS THAT IF
YOU WANT TO GET ON THE BALLOT
IN A GIVEN YEAR, THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OPINION APPROVING
ALLOWING IT TO BE ON THE BALLOT
ON, HAS TO BE RENDERED BY APRIL
1 OF THAT YEAR.
NOW, WE HAVE THE VOTES.
WE HAVE THE SIGNATURES.
AND WE WANT TO BE ON THE BALLOT
THIS YEAR.
BUT IN THE EVENT THE COURT WERE
TO SEE FIT TO APPROVE IT THIS,
WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
THAT THE COURT RENDER ITS
WRITTEN OPINION BY APRIL 1.
OTHERWISE THE CONSTITUTION
WOULD PREVENT US FROM BEING ON
THE BALLOT THIS YEAR.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT.