SC18-1287 Department of State v. Florida Greyhound Association, Inc.,

SC18-1287 Department of State  v. Florida Greyhound Association, Inc.,


>>ALL RISE, HERE YOU HEAR YOU
HEAR YOU, SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES, GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS
HONORABLE COURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA PLEASE BE SEATED.
>>GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
FIRST CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE VERSUS
FLORIDA GREYHOUND ASSOCIATION.
COUNCIL?
>>GOOD MORNING MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
MY NAME IS JORDAN PRATT, DEPUTY
SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER’S IN THIS MATTER.
AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF
DELIBERATIONS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REVISION COMMISSION WHICH CONVENES ONCE EVERY TWO DECADES
PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION PROPOSED AMENDMENT
13 WHICH WOULD PHASE OUT COMMERCIAL DOG RACING IN
CONNECTION WITH WAGERING AND
LEAVE OTHER GAMING ACTIVITIES BY
2020. ACCOMPANYING THE PROPOSAL THE
COMMISSION APPROVED BALLOT
TITLE.
THIS CHALLENGE TO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THIS COURT ASKS TWO AND
ONLY TWO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST IS WHETHER THE BALLOT
TITLE AND SUMMARY DISCLOSED THE CHIEF LEGAL EFFECT OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
THE SECOND QUESTION THIS COURT
ASKS IS WHETHER THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY ARE TRUTHFUL OR
MISLEADING.
BECAUSE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR
AMENDMENT 13 FULFILLS BOTH THESE REQUIREMENTS THIS COURT SHOULD
ALLOW THE VOTERS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO WEIGH ITS MERIT AND CAST
THEIR VOTE AND PROJECT RESPONDENTS IMPROPER ATTEMPT TO
INTERFERE IN THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS.
REGARDING THE FIRST REQUIREMENT THE COURT HAS MADE PLAIN THAT
BALLOT LANGUAGE MUST DISCLOSE
THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
WHICH IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR CONSISTS ONLY OF ITS LEGAL
EFFECT AND NOT THE POLICY
MOTIVATIONS THAT MAY HAVE
PROMPTED THE PROPOSAL. AMENDMENT 13 IS A SIMPLE
PROPOSAL AND IT LEGAL EFFECT IS
SIMPLE.
WHAT IT WOULD DO HIS PHASEOUT COMMERCIAL DOG RACING IN
CONNECTION WITH WAGERING, END
RACING OF GREYHOUNDS AND OTHER
DOGS BY PARAMUTUAL PERMIT HOLDERS.
IT WOULD OTHERWISE LEAVE GAMING
ACTIVITIES UNAFFECTED AND THAT
IS WHAT THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY TELL THE VOTERS THE
AMENDMENT WOULD DO.
>>THE TITLE SAYS ENDS DOG
RACING.>>CORRECT.
THIS IS VERY CLEAR, VOTERS ARE
PRESUMED TO READ THE BALLOT
TITLE AND SUMMARY THEY HAVE WHEN THEY GO TO THE BALLOT BOX.
THE TITLE AND SUMMARY SERVE
DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, IT IS A
CAPTION AND THE SUMMARY IS A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE
MEASURE OF CHIEF LEGAL EFFECT TO
BE MORE PRECISE SO THIS COURT IS
NOT TASKED WITH FOCUSING SEPARATELY ON THE BALLOT TITLE
IN THE BALLOT SUMMARY BUT PUTS
BOTH TOGETHER.
>>THE IDEA SO I UNDERSTAND, IF THIS PASSES, THERE WILL BE NO
MORE COMMERCIAL DOG RACING FOR
WAGERING AND ALL THE DOG TRACKS
THAT EXIST CAN STILL KEEP THEIR OTHER GAMING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
THE SLOT MACHINES AND OFF THE
TRACK BETTING?
>>PRECISELY CORRECT.>>DO THEY HAVE UNTIL 2020 TO
FINISH THIS?
I NOTICED ARTICLE 12 ON THE
SCHEDULE SAYS THEY WILL TAKE EFFECT ON APPROVAL OF THE
ELECTORATE.
HOW DOES THIS WORK, DOES IT STOP
DOG RACING FOR THE PASSAGE OF THIS AS OF 2020?
>>THE BAND TAKES EFFECT ON
DECEMBER 31, 2020.
>>PERMIT HOLDERS MAY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT BEGIN
ON JANUARY 1, 2019, CEASE DOG
RACING.
>>THEY CONTINUE IF THEY WANT TO IN 2020.
>>DECEMBER 31, 2020, IS THE
LAST DAY A LICENSED PARAMUTUAL
FACILITY OPERATOR CAN OPERATE DOG RACING.
JANUARY 1, 2019, IS THE FIRST
DATE ON WHICH THOSE PERMIT
HOLDERS END DOG RACING. THAT IS WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS A
PHASEOUT AND AN ACCURATE
REPRESENTATION.
IT TAKES EFFECT DECEMBER 31, 2020.
THE ARGUMENT WHY THEY CONTEND
THE LANGUAGE IS AFFIRMATIVELY
MISLEADING, IT DECLINES TO DISCLOSE TO VOTERS THAT RELATES
TO DOG RACES THAT OCCUR IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA AND THAT IS
TRUE THE BALLOT SUMMARY TITLE DO NOT SAY IT RELATES ONLY TO DOG
RACES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BUT WE DEAL WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND IT MAKES CLEAR
VOTERS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMMON SENSE
AND AT A MINIMUM WE SUBMIT THE VOTERS SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THEY VOTE
ON AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT THEY DETERMINE WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE
IN FLORIDA, NOT OTHER STATES.
>>IS A THE IDEA THEY COULD
STILL BET ON DOG RACING IN OTHER STATES?
>>RESPONDENTS RAISE A RELATED
ARGUMENT WHICH IS THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT ENACTED BY VOTERS, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CITIZENS WILL
STILL BE ABLE TO CAST WAGERS ON
OUT-OF-STATE RACES.
>>I DON’T KNOW WHERE IN THE RECORD, THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF THE DOG RACETRACKS
ARE IN FLORIDA.
>>IN THE COUNTRY THAT IS CORRECT, THAT IS WITHIN THE
RECORD AND THERE’S CERTAINLY
ASPECT OF THE COMMISSION’S
DISCUSSIONS IN THE TRANSITS OF THE HEARING.
>>THE ARGUMENT THAT IT DIDN’T
SAY IT IS GOING TO END DOG
RACING EVERYWHERE. IS THAT A ONE OF THE REASONS THE
TRIAL JUDGE STRUCK THIS?
>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE TRIAL
JUDGE’S ORDER. THE TRIAL JUDGE FOCUSED ON THE
SECOND BUT RELATED ARGUMENT
WHICH IS THE WAGERING ON
OUT-OF-STATE RACES. THAT ATTACK ON THE BALLOT
LANGUAGE FAILS FOR A RELATED
REASON NOT ONLY DO VOTERS
UNDERSTAND UNDER THIS AMENDMENT RACES AND OTHER STATES WILL BE
UNAFFECTED BUT THEY ALSO ARE
GOING TO READ WHAT THE LANGUAGE
SAYS. WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS IS THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD PHASE
OUT COMMERCIAL DOG RACING
CONNECTION WITH WAGERING, NOT THAT IT WOULD PHASE OUT WAGERING
IN CONNECTION WITH COMMERCIAL
DOG RACING.
WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT HAS DONE IS TAKE THE INVERSE OF
THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ASSUME
THE VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND THE
BALLOT LANGUAGE TO THE BE THE INVERSE OF WHAT IT SAYS.
>>EVEN IF SOMEONE THINKS
WRONGLY THAT IT WOULD AFFECT THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY, THOSE THAT DISFAVOR DOG RACING AT ALL AS
INHUMANE WOULD STILL VOTE FOR
THIS.
IF THAT IS AN ARGUMENT –>>AFFAIR POINT.
TO THE EXTENT RESPONDENTS ARGUE
THE BALLOT TITLE IS MISLEADING,
WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING IS THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT REACH AS FAR
AS VOTERS WOULD UNDERSTAND TO
REACH BY READING THE BALLOT
TITLE AND SUMMARY. IT IS TRUE THAT A VOTER WHO
FAVORS THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
FAVORITES LEGAL EFFECT.
THAT LEGAL EFFECT IS DISCLOSED BY THE BALLOT LANGUAGE BUT EVEN
IF THEY LEAKED IT WOULD
ACCOMPLISH MORE, CERTAINLY A YES
VOTE, THEIR VOTE WOULDN’T CHANGE.
WE ARE NOT RESTING ON THAT
CONTENTION.
WE CONTEND THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY ARE MISLEADING.
THEY ARE NOT HYPERTECHNICAL, AND
WHAT THE CHIEF LEGAL PURPOSE.
>>WITH REGARDS TO THE RACES REVERSING BALLOT LANGUAGE.
AND TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE
IN THE ORDINARY MEETING.
EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO FOCUS SOLELY ON THE TITLE THE TITLE IS
NOT — THE REASON FOR THAT IS
THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE
UNADORNED TERM DOG RACING ENTAILS WAGERING AND THEY LOOK
TO DIFFERENT SOURCES.
AND LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF NEWS
ARTICLES THAT APPLY THE UNMODIFIED, GAMBLING OR WAGERING
ACTIVITY BUT THIS COURT DOESN’T
HAVE TO LOOK AT NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES. THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY JAMES
BLANCHARD AND THE WEBSITE, WHICH
POST THOSE ARTICLES WHICH
DESCRIBE THE INDUSTRY AS THE DOG RACING INDUSTRY THAT MAKE CLEAR
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WAGERING
ACTIVITIES.
MISTER BLANCHARD’S AFFIDAVIT TALKS ABOUT GREYHOUND RACING.
DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT
WAGERING, THAT IS A SYNONYMOUS
— AND THE BALLOT TITLE, IT IS NOT A FALSE STATEMENT.
THOSE ARE THE ARGUMENTS
RESPONDENTS RAISED WHY THE
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY ARE AFFIRMATIVE LEASING.
THE TRIAL COURT, THE BALLOT
TITLE AND SUMMARY ARE MISLEADING
BY MISSION, MISLEADING BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO SAY WHAT THEY
NEED TO SAY.
THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE UNAVAILING
FOR SEVERAL REASONS. THE FIRST ARGUMENT, TO DISCLOSE
THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
AND WORKING WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THIS COURT HAS BEEN
CLEAR FOR DECADES THAT WHAT A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT BALLOT
LANGUAGE NEEDS TO DO IS DISCLOSE THE CHIEF LEGAL EFFECT, NOT THE
POLICY RELATION OF A PROPOSAL.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE IS NOT
LEGALLY EFFECTIVE. THE RESPONDENTS TRIED TO ARGUE
THAT UNDER THE CONTROLLING
STANDARD THE COURT SET FORTH IN
GRAY AGAINST, THE LAW OF THE STATE FOR DECADES, THAT SOMEHOW
THIS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WILL
HAVE AN IMPACT ON CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF THE INDUSTRY.>>ONE COULD LOOK AT THE
CONSTITUTION AND ASSUMING THIS
AMENDMENT PASSED, LOOK AT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THEN SAY HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE IN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA BUT WE ARE TREATING
SOME ANIMAL IN A CERTAIN WAY AND IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
WHY ISN’T THAT ARGUMENT MADE
ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE?>>TO BE CLEAR THERE IS AN
OPERATIVE LEGAL EFFECT THAT
DEALS WITH ANIMAL WELFARE.
>>YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN GETTING RID OF
GREYHOUND RACING BUT MAY NOT BE
INTERESTED IN DECLARING THE
HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.
>>THIS COURT HAS BEEN VERY
CLEAR, NEED ONLY AND DISCLOSE
THE LEGAL EFFECT OF MEASURE. AND SEE WHAT HIS BREATH MIGHT
BE, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ABOUT
THE BREADTH OF THE VALUE
STATEMENT, WHETHER IT HAS ANY LEGAL EFFECT THIS COURT MADE
PLAIN, IN 1960.
IN ORDER TO BE LEGALLY
EFFECTIVE, THE CONSTITUTION HAS TO PUT IN A MECHANISM BY WHICH
IT CAN BE ENFORCED.
THE STATEMENT THE ANIMAL
WELFARE, DOESN’T PROVIDE JUDICIAL AND FORCIBLE — IS ALL
AUTHORITY TO ENACT ANY MANNER OF
ANIMAL WELFARE POLICY.
NOT ADDING POWERFUL LEGISLATURE. AS TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, THE
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
HAD AMPLE REASON TO CHOOSE THE
COURSE THAT IT DID. THIS COURT HAS APPROVED BALLOT
LANGUAGE THAT DECLINED TO
ADDRESS A PREPARATORY STATEMENT
OF PURPOSE AND THAT IS MARINE NET FISHING, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE
IN THAT CASE MADE NO MENTION OF
THE AMENDMENT’S TEXT, THE FIRST
STATEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT TEXT, MARINE RESOURCES BELONG TO THE
PEOPLE AND SHOULD BE CONSERVED
AND MANAGE THE BENEFIT OF THE
STATE IN FUTURE GENERATIONS IN THIS COURT APPROVED THE BALLOT
LANGUAGE WHICH IT SAID —
>>THE TREATMENT OF PIGS DURING
PREGNANCY. SECTION 21 OF ARTICLE 10.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR
NOT WHETHER THEY MIGHT ELEVATE
OTHER RIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS IN THIS AMENDMENT.
SHOULD HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED IN
THE BALLOT SUMMARY.
>>DISCLOSURE OF THESE TYPES OF STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WAS
PERILOUS.
IN PARTICULAR LOOKING AT
LAND-USE PLANS CASE IN WHICH THE COURT STRUCK BALLOT LANGUAGE.
ACCURATELY QUOTED AND
PARAPHRASED A PREPARATORY
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL
PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL LAND-USE
PLANNING AND WHAT THE COURT SAID WAS THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
EVEN THOUGH IT APPEARED IN THE
TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF AT
THAT WAS POLITICAL OR EDITORIAL LANGUAGE AND THIS COURT CITING
EVANS AGAINST FIRESTONE WHICH IS
THE CASE THE COURT MADE CLEAR
THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSIST OF
ITS LEGAL EFFECT, NOT POLICY.
THIS COURT RELIED ON EVIDENCE TO
STRIKE THAT BALLOT.>>IT MIGHT BE THE REVERSE.
IF THEY PUT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT
IS OF FUNDAMENTAL VALUE INHUMANE
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IT WOULD APPEAL TO A BROADER GROUP OF
PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT PARTICULARLY
CARE ABOUT GREYHOUND RACING BUT
CARE ABOUT VALUES. I CAN SEE THE RIVERS ARGUMENT
BEING MADE IF THAT HAD BEEN
INCLUDED.
UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING?>>I THINK I DO.
THIS COURT’S PRESIDENT MADE
CLEAR THIS COURT IS CONCERNED
WITH TWO THINGS IN THIS CONTEXT. NUMBER ONE, IT IS CONCERNED WITH
DISCLOSING THE CHIEF LEGAL
EFFECT OF THE MEASURE AND NUMBER
2, IT IS CONCERNED THAT VOTERS COULD BE PROMPTED TO VOTE BASED
ON THE WHY RATHER THAN THE WHAT.
THIS COURT MADE PLAIN IT DOESN’T
ONE VOTERS TO CAST THEIR VOTE BASED ON WHY.
IT ONCE THEM TO FOCUS ON WHAT
AND THE WHAT IS THE LEGAL EFFECT
OF THE AMENDMENT. THIS COURT HAS APPROVED BALLOT
LANGUAGE THAT IS DISCLOSE
PREPARATORY FOR THE STATEMENTS
BUT ALSO DISAPPROVED AND I THINK ONE COULD FAIRLY SAY THE SAFEST
COURSE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN
AMENDMENT THAT CONTAINS
PREPARATORY STATEMENT WITH NO INDEPENDENT LEGAL EFFECT IS TO
ADMIT DISCLOSURE SO WE ARE NOT
POLITICIZING THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS BUT DISCLOSING TO THE VOTERS WITH THE LEGAL EFFECT IS
SO THEY CAN VOTE BASED ON THAT.
>>YOU CAN KEEP GOING BUT YOU
ARE INTO REBUTTAL TIME.>>IF THE COURT HAS NO OTHER
QUESTIONS I WILL RESERVE THE
REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
>>MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. WITH ME, STEVE EMANUEL, THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HERE.
THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT REASONS THE COURT
SHOULD FIND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE,
STRIKE THE BALLOT FROM THE
NOVEMBER ELECTION. FIRST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IN
AMENDMENT 13 DOES FAIL TO
DISCLOSE THE CHIEF PURPOSE FOR
THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, AND ALSO TO DECOUPLE THE
LICENSURE WHICH WAS AN ISSUE IN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR YEARS
FROM SLOT MACHINES AND CARD ROOMS TO DECOUPLE THE LICENSURE
FROM GREYHOUND RACING.
>>HOW DOES IT NOT IF IT IS A
THE GAMING ACTIVITIES ARE NOT AFFECTED?
>>THIS COURT HAS SAID IF AN
AMENDMENT IMPACTS ANOTHER
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT MUST BE NOTICED AND GIVEN
NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE.
ARTICLE 10 SECTION 23 WAS PASSED
AND ALLOWED GAMING AND DOG RACING AND BROWARD COUNTY.
AND THE PEOPLE OF THOSE COUNTIES
AUTHORIZED IT TO TAKE PLACE.
THEY CONSTITUTIONALLY CONNECTED THOSE EVENTS, DOG RACING AND
CASINOS.
AND WE ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY
DISCONNECTING THOSE. IT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE
BALLOT TITLE.
>>JUSTICE PARIENTE’S QUESTION,
IF THERE IS NO MORE COMMERCIAL DOG RACING AND OTHER GAMBLING
WILL CONTINUE AS AUTHORIZED, WHY
ISN’T THAT A CLEAR STATEMENT
THEY ARE BEING DECOUPLED?>>IF IT IS A CLEAR STATEMENT TO
THAT EFFECT, YES, BUT STILL, THE
COURT SAID IF IT AFFECTS ANOTHER
SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED.
>>IT IS NOT AFFECTING IT.
>>IT IS DISCONNECTING RACING
FROM CASINOS AND ESTABLISHING FREESTANDING CASINOS IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA WHICH REJECTED
THE BALLOT.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.>>YOU ARE SAYING THAT
PRESENTLY.
AND OPERATING IN CONNECTION WITH
GREYHOUND RACING. AND BY GETTING RID OF THE
GREYHOUND RACING, WITHOUT VOTER
APPROVAL, HAVING FREESTANDING
CASINOS. IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO THE
VOTING PUBLIC AND THE
FREESTANDING CASINOS, THEY WERE
FIRST PART OF GREYHOUND RACING FACILITIES.
>>THE SECOND REASON —
>>WHAT SECTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS THAT?>>ARTICLE 10 SECTION 23.
>>THE SECOND BALLOT LANGUAGE OF
AMENDMENT 13 IS AFFIRMATIVELY
MISLEADING BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ADVISE FLORIDA VOTERS THAT IT
WOULD ENSHRINE THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, BROAD FUNDAMENTAL
DECLARATION AT THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
>>WHAT LEGAL EFFECT WOULD THAT PREPARATORY STATEMENT HAVE?
WOULDN’T IT BE UP TO THE COURT
AND SUBSEQUENT CASE TO DECIDE IF
THERE’S A LEGAL EFFECT OR NOT, AND YOU ARE SAYING IT MUST DO
THAT?
I DON’T THINK IT DOES THAT.
AND FOCUSING ON SOMETHING PEOPLE CARE ABOUT WHICH IS HUMANE
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS LIKE, IT IS
NOT SAYING, NOT GIVING AN
INDEPENDENT RIGHT THAT IS UNASSOCIATED WITH THE GREYHOUND
RACING.
EXPLAIN HOW THAT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT MUST BE A CHIEF PURPOSE AND
THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE SAID IT IS
PHASING OUT COMMERCIAL DOG
RACING UNDER GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT AFFECTED AND ESTABLISHING
THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS AS A FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
EVEN THOUGH THE FULL TEXT DEALS
WITH DOG RACING.
>>THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE LANGUAGE DOES HAVE LEGAL EFFECT
AND ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT CONTAIN
DETAILED ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS,
IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF SOCIETY’S CONSENSUS AND I CAN ASSURE YOU
AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, CITED AS
AUTHORITY IN FUTURE CASES.
>>IF WE ARE A VOTER AND I CARE ABOUT INHUMANE TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS.
I DON’T THINK THERE SHOULD BE
HORSE RACING. PUTTING THAT IN WOULD HAVE MORE
PEOPLE VOTING FOR IT IT WOULD
SEEM TO ME.
I DON’T SEE HOW LEAVING IT OUT IS MISLEADING.
UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING?
>>JUSTICE PARIENTE, THIS COURT
SAID THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE LANGUAGE IN THE EDUCATION OF —
AMENDMENT, WAS A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF THE AMENDMENT.
>>IN BUSH VERSUS HOLMES, THAT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
COMMISSION AMENDMENT THAT NEVER
CAME TO THIS COURT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? IN BUSH VERSUS HOLMES, WAS
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT AND THAT AMENDMENT IT
LINKS THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE TO THE SECOND PART, A PRECEPT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO HAVE
GOOD EDUCATION FOR ALL.
IT LINKS THE TWO TO GATHER, A PREPARATORY STATEMENT IS A
STATEMENT.
IT HELPS THE CASE.
>>IT WAS IN THE BALLOT SUMMARY OF EDUCATION AMENDMENT.
IT WASN’T THE BALLOT TITLE OR
SUMMARY.
HERE IT IS THE FIRST LINE, IN ADDITION TO THE COURT SAYING IT
WAS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE
AMENDMENT, BY WHAT WAS PUT IN BY
THE CRC, TO MAKE SURE EDUCATION WAS KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE AS A
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT —
>>THE TWO STATEMENTS HAD TO DO WITH EDUCATION, NOT A MORE
SPECIFIC STATEMENT WHICH HAS TO
DO WITH DOG RACING.
>>KNOW.>>ISN’T IT TRUE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATED
TO PUBLIC EDUCATION EVER TALKS
ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL VALUE, GOES ON TO SAY MORE SPECIFICALLY IT IS A
PARAMOUNT DUTY OF THE STATE TO
MAKE ADEQUATE REVISIONS AND THE
ARGUMENT THAT AMENDMENT HAS FOCUSED ON WHAT THAT MEANS.
AND THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.
THAT IS THE WINDOW DRESSING
BEYOND THAT.>>LET ME REFER TO THE CASE THAT
HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT LOCAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ADDRESSING
THE INHUMANE TREATMENT. AND IT WAS THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF
THEIR AMENDMENT.
>>AND THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
HE MAINLY IS ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IF YOU SAY THAT HAS A LEGAL
EFFECT.
>>THEY ARE INCORPORATING THAT. AND THE SUMMARY, THAT WAS ON THE
BALLOT.
>>I’M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND
YOUR ASSERTION THAT THIS LANGUAGE HAS ANY LEGAL EFFECT.
THIS WOULD PROHIBIT CONDUCT IN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIRECTLY?
IT IS NOT SELF-EXECUTING, RIGHT?>>PROBABLY NOT.
>>IF IT IS NOT SELF-EXECUTING
YOU ARE RIGHT.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE LEGISLATURE TO DO SOMETHING TO
MAKE, GIVE IT LEGAL EFFECT.
THIS IS ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO
DO ANYTHING THEY CAN’T ALREADY DO OR PREVENT THE LEGISLATURE
FROM DOING ANYTHING?
>>IF IT DOESN’T HAVE A DIRECT
LEGAL EFFECT, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY HAVE A LEGAL EFFECT?
>>WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE
PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW.
IN LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS WAS DECLARED, THE CHIEF PURPOSE.
IF LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS HAS
BEEN DECLARED CRITICAL, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING TO THE PEOPLE.
>>IF YOU CAN’T IDENTIFY A LEGAL
EFFECT IT SOUNDS LIKE POLITICAL
RHETORIC. THEY CAN PUT POLITICAL RHETORIC
ON ABOUT SUMMARY.
IT HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT FOR
POLITICAL RHETORIC.>>IF THE COURT WOULD PERMIT ME,
THE ANIMAL LAW SECTION OF THE
FLORIDA BAR, THERE’S NO BETTER
PLACE FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW TO BE ENSHRINED.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTOOD WHAT ENSHRINED WAS
AND LOOKED UP THE DEFINITION AND IT SAID TO BE MADE PERMANENT.
THE LAW HISTORICALLY VIEWS
ANIMALS AS PERSONAL PROPERTY.
WE COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT ANIMALS, THE LAW IS SHIFTING
TOWARDS MORE HUMANE VIEW THAT
RECOGNIZES DISTINCTION BETWEEN
LIVING BEINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.
FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL BE ABLE
TO POINT TO THE CHANGE IN THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AS AN IMPORTANT SHIFT IN THE WAY
ANIMALS ARE TREATED AND AN
EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL AND MORAL
PROGRESS. AND SURELY THE EVOLUTION IN THE
LAW, THE SHIFT IN THE LAW AND
CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION
INDICATE A LEGAL EFFECT PEOPLE WILL EXPECT TO BE CARRIED OUT BY
THE COURTS AND THE LEGISLATURE.
>>WOULDN’T THE SITUATION BE
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IF THE REFERENCE WAS TO A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT HAS OPPOSED TO A
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE?
WE THINK ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT BRINGS TO MIND THE
POSSIBILITY OF ENFORCEMENT.
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE WITHOUT MORE
REALLY DOES NOT BRING TO MIND THE IDEA OF ENFORCEMENT.
I AM SURE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE
WHO WOULD VIEW THE ADOPTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE DOG RACING AS
A STEP FORWARD IN THE HUMANE
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS AND
SOMETHING THAT MIGHT SET A PRECEDENT FOR FURTHER PUBLIC
POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE
BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER
THAN A LEGAL MATTER ON WHICH THIS ARGUMENT HEADS.
>>ALSO, MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE,
THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT ENSHRINE
THIS BROAD DECLARATION ONLY TO DOG RACING.
>>HERE IS MY PROBLEM AGAIN.
I APPRECIATE AND ECHO WHAT
JUSTICE KENNEDY IS SAYING. YOU HAD 15 YEARS AGO, WE ARE NOT
GOING TO CONFINE PREGNANT PIGS.
20 YEARS AGO, WE ARE GOING TO
NOT ALLOW WAGERING ON DOG RACING.
BETWEEN THOSE TWO, ARE YOU
SAYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REVISION COMMISSION INTENDED, BY PUTTING THIS LANGUAGE IN THE
AMENDMENT, THE HUMANE TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
VALUE, THEY INTENDED FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO GO BEYOND DOG
RACING.
AND PROVIDE A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT FOR ANIMALS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THAT THAT WAS THEIR
INTENT, YOU’RE SAYING THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CHIEF
PURPOSE. THE READING THIS AMENDMENT AS A
WHOLE, YOU SEE IT WAS BROADER
THAN GREYHOUND RACING WAGERING.
>>TALKS ABOUT ANIMALS AND ONLY THE TITLE AND SUMMARY RELATED TO
DOG RACING.
>>LET’S JUST ASSUME AGAIN IT
SAID IN THE BALLOT SUMMARY HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.
I DON’T KNOW ANYONE WHO THINKS
IT IS GOOD TO HAVE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS EVEN IF
THEY ARE NOT DOG LOVERS.
THE QUESTION IF IT HAD BEEN IN
THERE, ARE YOU SAYING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS
INTENDED TO GO BEYOND WAGERING
ON DOG RACING TO AFFECT ALL
TYPES OF DOGS, CATS, RABBITS,>>THAT IS ADEQUATELY REFERRED
TO, AND EMPHASIZED IN THE
STATEMENT BY THE FLORIDA BAR.
>>WE ARE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS CASE.
>>ISSUES RELATING TO CIRCUSES
AND TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN
THOSE? I EARN THIS COURT WILL BE
SEEING, THE LEGISLATURE SEEING
LOTS OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AS A
RESULT OF THIS BUT WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO INSTILL IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA A STATEMENT INVOLVING
THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE OF AN ITEM AND NOT DISCLOSE THAT TO THE
PUBLIC, TO THE VOTER?
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO INCLUDE
SUCH A SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT. A STATEMENT THAT HAS BEEN TALKED
ABOUT AS CRITICAL, THAT HAS BEEN
TALKED ABOUT AS THE CHIEF
PURPOSE AND NOT DISCLOSE IT?>>YOU TALKED ABOUT IT IS CHIEF
PURPOSE?
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
>>THE REFERENDUM REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN IN 2005, THE COURT STATED
IN ADDRESSING THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS AND THE
PREGNANT PIG CASE WAS NOT ONLY
THE SPONSOR’S REASON FOR
ADVANCING THE AMENDMENT BUT THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
ITSELF AND THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE
OF THE LANGUAGE, AND WERE IN THE
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY. WE THINK IT IS NOT ONLY
MISLEADING BUT IT IS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE VOTER TO
BE REQUIRED TO SAY YAY OR NAY SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE WITHOUT
BEING GIVEN NOTICE THEY ARE
DOING SO.
WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD AND VALID REASON FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STRIKING THIS FROM
THE BALLOT.
SO IN THE MINUTE I HAVE LEFT, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT DECOUPLING IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COUPLING AND IF THIS PASSES, THERE WILL BE IN
EFFECT A VOTE FOR FREESTANDING
CASINOS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
AND DENIED BY THE VOTERS. HAND WHEN IT IS PUT ON THE
BALLOT.
ALSO, IT WILL BE DECOUPLING THAT
WAS NOT ONLY BY THE CONSTITUTION BUT ALSO BY THE VOTERS OF
MIAMI-DADE AND TO SAY THAT NO
OTHER GAMING IS UNAFFECTED IS
AFFECTED, IS FALSE AND WOULD REQUIRE THE COURT TO STRIKE THIS
FROM THE BALLOT.
>>I WOULD LIKE TO PICK BACK UP
WHERE MY DISTINGUISHED MAN ON THE OTHER SIDE LEFT OFF.
THE RESPONDENTS MADE AN ACCURATE
AND CRITICAL CONCESSION,
FORECLOSING THEIR ARGUMENT FRONT DISCLOSED CHANGE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS QUO.
THE RESPONDENT HAVE AGREED WITH
PETITIONERS, ARTICLE 10 SECTION 23 DOES NOT IMPOSE A
FREESTANDING STATEWIDE
CONSTITUTIONAL COUPLING
REQUIREMENT FOR SLOT MACHINES AND PARI-MUTUEL FACILITIES.
WHAT IT DOES DO IS ESTABLISHES
THE AUTHORITY OF TWO COUNTIES,
BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE, TO REFERENDUM, COUNTYWIDE
REFERENDUM, SLOT MACHINES, AND
FACILITIES THAT EXISTED IN 2004.
THE OTHER IS ASIAN HAS ALREADY HEARD AND TO THE EXTENT THERE IS
ANY COUPLING REQUIREMENT
REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10
SECTION 23, THAT RELATES ONLY TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED IN THAT
AMENDMENT TO TWO COUNTIES.
RESPONDENTS —
>>THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THAT LAST STATEMENT, FOR DADE
AND BROWARD COUNTIES, THOSE
FACILITIES THAT ARE NOW ALLOWED
PURSUANT TO THE VOTE OF LOCAL CITIZENS TO HAVE ACQUIRED ROOMS
OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY HAVE IF
THEY HAVE CERTAIN PARI-MUTUEL
ACTIVITIES GOING ON, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT KIND OF
LICENSE SO NOW, WHAT THIS DOES
AND WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THERE
IS NO LONGER THE REQUIREMENT IN BROWARD COUNTY THAT IT BE
COUPLED WITH SOME KIND OF OTHER
ACTIVITIES THAT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS CAN CONDUCT THEIR SLOT MACHINES OR WHATEVER,
WITHOUT THAT PREDICATE.
THAT IS WHAT THIS DOES
EFFECTIVELY.>>CORRECT JUSTICE LEWIS.
>>NO OTHER PLACE IN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, JUST THOSE TWO
COUNTIES.>>NOT EXACTLY, JUSTICE LEWIS.
>>TELL ME EXACTLY.
>>TO BE VERY PRECISE, THERE IS
BY STATUTE, NOT BY CONSTITUTION BUT BY STATUTE WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO ENACT
A REQUIREMENT.
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID IS ALTHOUGH THE LEGISLATURE HAS
AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT IT ONCE
WITH REGARD TO SLOT POLICY THE
LEGISLATURE COULD AUTHORIZE SLOTS, GAS STATIONS AS A MATTER
OF POLICY.
KEEP THEM TO PARI-MUTUEL
FACILITIES. SECTION 551102, SUBPARAGRAPH 4,
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES SLOTS,
SLOT MACHINE GAMING IN
FACILITIES THAT ARE PARI-MUTUEL FACILITIES OUTSIDE MIAMI-DADE
AND BROWARD COUNTY.
AS LONG AS THE COUNTY IS A HOME
COUNTY A COUNTY IS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 125 OF FLORIDA STATUTES
THE COUNTY CAN HAVE SLOTS.
AND SORT OF SLOT ARE NOT
CONFINED TO THE TWO COUNTIES EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT 10
SECTION 23.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS ARTICLE
10 SECTION 23 RELATES ONLY TO THE COUNTY’S OWN AUTHORITY TO
AUTHORIZE THEIR OWN SLOT
MACHINES AND THAT IS ONLY
GRANTED TO MIAMI-DADE.>>OF THE 12 GREYHOUND RACING
FACILITIES IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, YOU HAVE ONE IN PALM
BEACH COUNTY. WILL THEY BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
HAVE THESE OTHER SLOT MACHINES?
CAN THE LEGISLATURE GO AND
CHANGE THE STATUTE AND SAY YOU DON’T HAVE PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING,
LIVE RACING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO
ALLOW THIS?
>>WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IGNORING THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ASKING
ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE’S A 40,
OUTSIDE MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY THE LEGISLATURE CAN
DECOUPLE, BAN, EXPAND, THAT IS
AN AUTHORITY THE LEGISLATURE
HAS. THE RESPONDENT CONCEDED THE
LEGISLATURE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
DO WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT
WOULD DO WHICH IS TO AMEND STATUTORY LAW TO DECOUPLE AND
THIS IS VERY PLAIN, AND THE
LIMITATIONS —
>>THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT GREYHOUND RACING ON
DECEMBER 31ST.
IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS
TO REVOKE OR DENY RENEWAL OF OTHER GAMING LICENSES HELD BY A
PERSON WHO IS A LICENSED
GREYHOUND PERMIT HOLDER.
DOES IT GIVE THE PARTY AFFIRMATIVELY, THE LEGISLATURE
PRECLUDED, REVOKING THE
LICENSES, THAT CONDUCT LIVE
GREYHOUND RACING.>>IT IS NOT AN ISSUE DISCUSSED
IN THE BRIEFING.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WHAT THIS
COURT WOULD LOOK TO ABOUT WHETHER THE LAND WHICH CONTAINS
LIMITATION ON THE POWERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
THIS MAKES CLEAR THE OPERATION OF THE AMENDMENT FOR GAMING
ACTIVITIES AND THAT AFFECTED
THIS AMENDMENT, PLAINLY
DISCLOSED IN THE VOTERS INASMUCH AS THEY ARE TOLD OTHER GAMING
ACTIVITIES WON’T BE AFFECTED.
I HAPPY TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS THE COURT MIGHT HAVE.>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Author: Kevin Mason

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *