[*] Staff Attorney, Fla. H.R. Judiciary Comm.; Former Analyst, S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight. B.S., 1986, Glenville State College; J.D., 1989, Florida State University. Return to text.

[**] Executive Director, Fla. Jt. Advis. Council on Intergovtl. Rel.; former Chief Analyst, Fla. S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight. M.S., 1978, Florida State University.

Pursuant to an assignment by the Florida Senate President during the 1994 interim period, the authors, as analysts for the Florida Senate Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, studied the subject of this Article and compiled a report of their findings. Those findings are the basis of this Article, and the authors have excerpted portions of the report into the Article. The views expressed in this Article are those of the authors and are not intended to reflect the opinion of the Florida Senate, Florida House of Representatives, or the Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight. The authors wish to thank Meredith Woodrum Snowden for technical assistance.

For other recent Articles on this subject see Daniel R. Gordon, Protecting Against the State Constitutional Law Junkyard: Proposals to Limit Popular Constitutional Revision in Florida, 20 NOVA L. REV. 413 (1995); Joseph W. Little, Does Direct Democracy Threaten Constitutional Governance in Florida?, 24 STETSON L. REV. 393 (1995). Return to text.

[1] Gilbert Hahn & Steven C. Morton, Note, Initiative and Referendum—Do They Encourage or Impair Better State Government? 5 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 925, 927 (1977). Return to text.

[2] Id. at 925. Return to text.

[3] FLA. S. COMM. ON GOV'T REFORM & OVERSIGHT, A REVIEW OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE METHOD OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION 9 (1995) (on file with comm.) [hereinafter CITIZEN INITIATIVE]. Return to text.

[4] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3; see TALBOT D'ALEMBERTE, THE FLORIDA STATE CONSTITUTION—A REFERENCE GUIDE 13 (1991). Return to text.

[5] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 1. Return to text.

[6] See id. Return to text.

[7] Interview with Division of Elections, Fla. Dept. of State (Nov. 16, 1995) (notes on file with Fla. S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight, Tallahassee, FL) [hereinafter Division of Elections Interview]. Return to text.

[8] See infra part VII. Return to text.

[9] See id. Return to text.

[10] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 1993) (McDonald, J., concurring). Return to text.

[11] ALBERT L. STURM, THIRTY YEARS OF STATE CONSTITUTION- MAKING: 1938-1968 4 (1970). Return to text.

[12] Id. Return to text.

[13] Id. Return to text.

[14] Id. at 4-5. Return to text.

[15] Id. Return to text.

[16] Id. at 5. Return to text.

[17] Id. Sturm points out, "In theory, constitutional provisions are presumed to include only organic features of permanent character and sufficient significance to warrant placement in the basic law." Id. at 6. Return to text.

[18] Id. at 5. Return to text.

[19] Id. Return to text.

[20] Id. Return to text.

[21] Id. at 5-6. Return to text.

[22] Id. Return to text.

[23] Id. Return to text.

[24] Id. at 18. Return to text.

[25] See infra notes 57-72 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[26] Tommy Neal, The Voter Initiative, 1 NAT'L CONF. STATE LEGISLATURES LEGISBRIEF 38, Oct. 1993, at 1. Return to text.

[27] Id. Return to text.

[28] Id. Return to text.

[29] See Hahn & Morton, supra note 1, at 925. Return to text.

[30] ALFRED BALITZER, THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: A STUDY AND EVALUATION OF DIRECT LEGISLATION, THE CALIFORNIA ROUNDTABLE 13 (1981). The Founding Fathers recognized that direct democracy posed a profound threat to individual rights and liberty. Id. The Constitution was "designed to provide a system of government that would prevent either a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the few." Id. James Madison "warned against the power of a majority or a minority of the population 'united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community.'" Id. Return to text.

[31] FLA. ADVIS. COUNCIL ON INTERGOVTL. REL., INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA: ISSUES IN CITIZEN LAWMAKING i (1986) (on file with comm.) [hereinafter INITIATIVES & REFERENDA]. Return to text.

[32] Hahn & Morton, supra note 1, at 926-27. Return to text.

[33] Id. Return to text.

[34] Neal, supra note 26, at 2. Return to text.

[35] INITIATIVES & REFERENDA, supra note 31, at ii. Return to text.

[36] DAVID B. MAGLEBY, DIRECT LEGISLATION—VOTING ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 (1984). Return to text.

[37] See id. Return to text.

[38] See id. Return to text.

[39] Id. at 38-39. Return to text.

[40] Neal, supra note 26, at 1. Return to text.

[41] Id. Return to text.

[42] This brief history is based on Talbot D'Alemberte's Reference Guide; see D'ALEMBERTE, supra note 4, at 3-15. D'Alemberte, former President of the American Bar Association and current President of Florida State University, was Chairman of the 1978 Constitution Revision Commission. Return to text.

[43] Id. (stating that citizens elected statehood by a vote of 2,139 to 1,164). Return to text.

[44] Id. at 3. Return to text.

[45] Id. Return to text.

[46] Id. at 4. Return to text.

[47] Id. Return to text.

[48] Id. at 5. Return to text.

[49] Id. Return to text.

[50] Id. at 6. Return to text.

[51] Id. Return to text.

[52] Id. at 6-7. Return to text.

[53] Id. (reporting that the 1868 constitution provided for public schools, the homestead exemption, and uniform taxes, and displaced the language which limited the rights of freemen; however, women were not enfranchised). Return to text.

[54] Id. Return to text.

[55] Id. at 8. Return to text.

[56] Id. at 9 (stating that during this 83-year period, 211 amendments were proposed and 147 were adopted). Return to text.

[57] Id. at 11. Return to text.

[58] Id. D'Alemberte notes that the 1968 revision shortened the size of the constitution from 20 articles to 12 and cut the text approximately in half. Id. at 12. Return to text.

[59] Id. The 1968 constitution made the first reference to a cabinet form of government, established the lieutenant governor's office, adopted a provision for succession in the event of the governor's incapacity, and permitted the governor to serve two terms. Id. This constitution limited the size of the Senate to 40-50 members and the House of Representatives to 80-120 members. Id. at 12-13. It also provided for a legislative auditor, a civil service system, and a code of ethics. Id. The new constitution also established a unique state court procedure for prompt resolution of apportionment disputes. Id. at 13. Return to text.

[60] Id. This revision amended the Declaration of Rights to state that no one could be deprived of rights because of race or religion. Id. It removed provisions that sought to preserve segregation in the schools and to prevent intermarriage between the races. Id. The revision added protections against wiretapping and a provision giving public employees the right to organize. Id. Return to text.

[61] Id. Return to text.

[62] Id. at 15. This was the first time in the United States that a constitution authorized such a commission; other states provided for commissions by general law. Id. Return to text.

[63] Id. at 15; see also Stephen Maher, The Conference on the Florida Constitution, 68 FLA. B. J. 66 (1994).

The 1978 Constitution Revision Commission shaped much of the agenda for further amendment of the constitution. D'ALEMBERTE, supra note 4, at 15. Subsequent proposed amendments, substantially the same as those the commission developed, have included: 1) adding a right of privacy to the Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1980; 2) extending impeachment to county judges, adopted in 1988; 3) providing uniform rules for the judicial nominating commissions, adopted in 1984; 4) extending the widows' exemption to widowers, adopted in 1988; 5) allowing the Legislature to classify inventory for property tax purposes, adopted in 1980; and 6) providing various changes in the state's authority relative to bonds, adopted in 1980 and 1984. Id. Return to text.

[64] Id. at 15. Return to text.

[65] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 6. Return to text.

[66] D'ALEMBERTE, supra note 4, at 15. Return to text.

[67] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 5. Return to text.

[68] Id. art. XI, § 1. Return to text.

[69] Id. art. XI, § 2. Return to text.

[70] Id. art. XI, § 3. Return to text.

[71] Id. art. XI, § 4. Return to text.

[72] Id. art. XI, § 6. Return to text.

[73] Division of Elections Interview, supra note 7. Return to text.

[74] Id. Return to text.

[75] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3; see INITIATIVES & REFERENDA, supra note 31, at 15. Return to text.

[76] INITIATIVES & REFERENDA, supra note 31, at 15. Return to text.

[77] Id. Return to text.

[78] See FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3 (1994 constitutional amendment number four relating to revenue limits). Return to text.

[79] Id. Return to text.

[80] See id. art. XI, § 5. Return to text.

[81] Id. art. XI, § 5(a). However, the Legislature may move the proposal to an earlier election by a three-fourths vote of each house. Id. Return to text.

[82] Id. art. XI, § 5(b). Return to text.

[83] Id. art. XI, § 5(c). Return to text.

[84] A joint legislative resolution placed the original proposal on the ballot. See INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA, supra note 31. The amended section states:

The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously.
FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 10. Return to text.

[85] Id. Return to text.

[86] Id. art. V, § 3(10) (requiring the Florida Supreme Court to render an advisory opinion). Return to text.

[87] FLA. STAT. §§ 15.21, 16.061, 99.097, 100.371, 101.161, 106.03 (1995). Return to text.

[88] Jim Smith, So You Want To Amend the Florida Constitution? A Guide to Initiative Petitions, 18 NOVA L. REV. 1509, 1511 (1994). Return to text.

[89] Id. at 1512. Return to text.

[90] FLA. STAT. § 106.03 (1995). This section requires that committees file a statement of organization which must include: the name and address of the committee; the names, addresses, and relationships of affiliated or connected organizations; the area, scope, or jurisdiction of the committee; the name, address, and position of the custodian of books and accounts; the name, address, and position of other principal officers; any issue or issues such organization is supporting or opposing; a statement as to whether the committee is a continuing one; a plan for the disposition of residual funds in the event of dissolution of the committee; and a listing of all banks, safe-deposit boxes, or other depositories used for committee funds. Id. Return to text.

[91] FLA. STAT. § 101.161(2) (1995); FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 1S-2.009(1) (1993). Return to text.

[92] FLA. STAT. § 101.161(1) (1995). The substance of the amendment must be an explanatory statement of the chief purpose of the proposal which does not exceed 75 words. Id. The ballot title cannot exceed 15 words. Id. Return to text.

[93] Id. § 101.161(2). Return to text.

[94] FLA. ADMIN. CODE. ANN. r. 1S-2009(1) (1994) (providing for department review of the petition's form only and not its legal sufficiency). Return to text.

[95] FLA. STAT. § 101.161 (1995). Return to text.

[96] FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 1S-2.009 (1995). Return to text.

[97] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3. Return to text.

[98] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 22 (compiling information from telephone interviews with election officials). Return to text.

[99] FLA. STAT. § 100.371(4), (5) (1995). Section 99.097, Florida Statutes, sets forth the process for verifying petition signatures. FLA. STAT. § 99.097 (1995). Section 99.097 is applicable to verifying signatures for petitions submitted to qualify candidates for public office and initiative petitions. Id. The supervisor of elections verifies signatures on either a name-by-name or random-sample basis, as the Department of State provides. Id. In 1978, however, the supreme court opined that the random sample verification was not applicable to initiative petitions. See Let's Help Florida v. Smathers, 360 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 1978). The court held that it is necessary to verify each signature because the constitution mandates that at least eight percent of the electors sign an initiative petition. Id. Return to text.

[100] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 22. Return to text.

[101] FLA. STAT. § 99.097(4) (1995). Return to text.

[102] Id. The comptroller reimburses, from the General Revenue Fund, the supervisor of elections in each county for the ten cents or cost incurred in verifying signatures when a committee is unable to pay the charges because of an undue burden. Id. Return to text.

[103] Id. § 99.097(5). Return to text.

[104] Id. § 100.371(4). Return to text.

[105] Id. § 100.371(1). Return to text.

[106] Id. § 15.21(3). Return to text.

[107] FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 10; FLA. STAT. § 16.061 (1995). Section 16.061 states:

The Attorney General shall, within 30 days after receipt of a proposed revision or amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the Secretary of State, petition the Supreme Court, requesting an advisory opinion regarding the compliance of the text of the proposed amendment or revision with s. 3, Art. XI of the State Constitution and the compliance of the proposed ballot title and substance with s. 101.161. The petition may enumerate any specific factual issues which the Attorney General believes would require a judicial determination.
FLA. STAT. § 16.061 (1995). Return to text.

[108] FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 10. Return to text.

[109] Id. art. XI, § 3. Return to text.

[110] Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Fla., 363 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1978). Return to text.

[111] Id. at 340. Return to text.

[112] 448 So. 2d 984, 988 (Fla. 1984). Return to text.

[113] Id. Return to text.

[114] Id.; see also Cherie B. Albury, Comment, Amendment Nine and the Initiative Process: A Costly Trip to Nowhere, 14 STETSON L. REV. 349, 358 (1985). Return to text.

[115] Fine, 448 So. 2d at 988. Return to text.

[116] See id.; Albury, supra note 114, at 359. Return to text.

[117] Fine, 448 So. 2d at 988; see also Albury, supra note 114, at 359. When conflicts occur after the electorate passes an amendment, the courts must determine the ramifications of the amendment on the preexisting, discordant provisions. Id. The court makes these determinations without the benefit of hearings, debates, or other legislative history to assist them. Id. Return to text.

[118] Fine, 448 So. 2d at 990 ("Such a violation has been determined to be a functional restraint, as opposed to a locational restraint; i.e., the amendment must affect only one function of government."); see also Albury, supra note 114, at 361-62. Return to text.

[119] Fine, 448 So. 2d at 990 (quoting City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 19 So. 2d 318, 320 ("Fla. 1944) stating that "Unity of object and plan is the universal test."). Return to text.

[120] Id. Return to text.

[121] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 1993). Logrolling is when a proposed amendment combines unrelated provisions, some of which electors might support, in order to pass an otherwise disfavored provision. Id. Return to text.

[122] Weber v. Smathers, 338 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla. 1976) (citing Goldner v. Adams, 167 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1964)). Return to text.

[123] FLA. STAT. § 101.161 (1995). Return to text.

[124] Id. Return to text.

[125] Grose v. Firestone, 422 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 1982). Return to text.

[126] Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 154 (Fla. 1982). Return to text.

[127] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 20. Return to text.

[128] Id. Return to text.

[129] Id. Return to text.

[130] Id. Return to text.

[131] Id. Return to text.

[132] Id. Return to text.

[133] Id. The court removed the following initiatives: Laws Related to Discrimination, removed March 4, 1994; Save Our Everglades, removed May 26, 1994; Stop Early Release of Prisoners, removed July 7, 1994; Voter Approval of New Taxes, removed October 4, 1994; Tax Limitations, removed October 4, 1994; Property Rights, removed October 4, 1994. Id. Return to text.

[134] Id. The Funding for Criminal Justice initiative did not meet signature requirements. Id. Return to text.

[135] Return to text.

[136] Interview with Division of Elections, Fla. Dept. of State (Feb. 7, 1996) (notes on file with Fla S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight, Tallahassee, Fla.). Return to text.

[137] Id. Return to text.

[138] See Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Casino Authorization, Taxation, and Regulation, 656 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1995) (holding that proposal's title and summary were misleading and could not appear on the 1996 ballot); Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Fla. Locally Approved Gaming, 656 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1995) (holding that this casino gambling initiative met single-subject and title/summary requirements and that the proposal can appear on the ballot in 1996). Return to text.

[139] See CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 72. Return to text.

[140] See id. at 73. Return to text.

[141] Id. Return to text.

[142] Neal, supra note 26, at 1. The following states have initiative processes: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Id. Return to text.

[143] Id. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota). Return to text.

[144] Id. (Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Return to text.

[145] Id. The remaining two states are Illinois and Mississippi. Id. Return to text.

[146] Id. Return to text.

[147] Id. Return to text.

[148] Id. Return to text.

[149] Id. Return to text.

[150] Id. at 2. Return to text.

[151] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, THE BOOK OF STATES 294 tbl. 5.15 (1994-95). These states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. Id. Return to text.

[152] Id. In addition to Florida, the states using a direct constitutional process are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. Id. Return to text.

[153] See infra text accompanying notes 160-75. Return to text.

[154] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 151, at 294 tbl. 5.15. Return to text.

[155] MISS. CONST. art. 15, § 273. The Mississippi Constitution provides for legislative review of the initiative petition prior to the proposal being placed on the ballot. The Legislature may adopt, amend, or reject the proposal. Id.; see also CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 28 (explaining Mississippi's process). Regardless of the legislative action, the initiative is placed on the ballot for the next general election. CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 28. However, the Legislature may pass an amended version of or an alternative to the initiative. MISS. CONST. art.15, § 273. Both the original initiative and the Legislature's proposed alternative initiative are placed on the ballot, along with a fiscal analysis of each proposal prepared by the legislative budget officer. Id. The Mississippi Constitution requires that 12 percent of the voters sign the initiative petition and limits the number of initiatives on one ballot to five. Id. Return to text.

[156] Id. Return to text.

[157] MASS. CONST. art. 48, pt. 4, § 2 (requiring a 25% vote of both legislative houses in two consecutive sessions). Return to text.

[158] Id. Return to text.

[159] CALIFORNIA COMM'N ON CAMPAIGN FINANCING, DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE—SHAPING CALIFORNIA'S FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT 359 (1992) [hereinafter DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE]. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Id. Return to text.

[160] Id. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming). Return to text.

[161] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 294, tbl. 5.15 (Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). The District of Columbia also has an indirect statutory process. Id. Return to text.

[162] UTAH CONST. art. VI, § 1; WASH. CONST. art. 1, § 1(a); see also DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 359. Utah statutes provide for submission to the Legislature of any measure accompanied by the signatures of 5% of the voters, 10 days prior to convening of the Legislature. UTAH STAT. § 20-11-2 (1995). If the measure is not enacted by the Legislature, signatures totalling an additional 5%, for a total of 10% of the votes cast for governor in the preceding election, must be collected to submit the proposal to the voters. Id. However, filing a petition with the signatures of 10% of the voters gets the measure directly to the voters. UTAH STAT. § 20-11-3 (1995). Unlike Utah, Washington has no provision for a constitutional initiative. WASH. CONST. art. 1, § 1(a) (1994). Both the direct and indirect statutory initiatives require the signatures of 8% of the voters prior to placement on the ballot. Id. If an indirect initiative is adopted by the Legislature, it still goes on the ballot as a referendum. Id. Return to text.

[163] MICH. CONST. art. 2, § 9; NEV. CONST. art. 29, § 2; see also DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 359. The Michigan and Nevada constitutions provide for legislative review of the proposal. MICH. CONST. art. 2, § 9; NEV. CONST. art. 29, § 2. The Michigan Legislature may propose an alternative measure. MICH. CONST. art. 2, § 9. The Michigan Constitution provides that if the Legislature does not enact or reject a proposed measure within 40 session days, the citizens vote on the initiative measure and any proposed alternative measure. Id.

The Nevada Constitution requires a committee to file its petition within 30 days prior to the legislative session. NEV. CONST. art. 29, § 2. If the Legislature fails to act within 40 days, the petition is submitted to the voters. Id. If the Legislature enacts the proposed amendment as a statute, it becomes law, but subject to referendum. Id. Return to text.

[164] MAINE CONST. art. 4, pt. 3, § 18. Return to text.

[165] ALASKA CONST. art. XI, § 1; WYO. CONST. ch. 24, § 22-24-101. Return to text.

[166] ALASKA CONST. art. XI, § 4; WYO. CONST. ch. 24, § 22-24-119. Return to text.

[167] Id. Return to text.

[168] See OHIO CONST. art. II, § 1b; MASS. CONST. art. 48, pt. V, § 1. The Ohio Constitution provides that the Legislature receives an initiative petition after it is signed by 3% of the voters. OHIO CONST. art. II, § 1b. The citizens vote on either the original measure or the legislatively-amended measure if the Legislature fails to act within 4 months and the additional 3% of voters sign the petition. Id.

The Massachusetts Constitution provides that the Legislature gets a proposal after 3% of the registered voters sign the petition. MASS. CONST. art. 48, pt. V, § 1. If the Legislature fails to act within the allotted time, and if the signatures of an additional 1/2% of the voters are submitted, the measure and any alternatives proposed by the Legislature are put before the voters. Id. Return to text.

[169] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 366. Return to text.

[170] Id. Return to text.

[171] See id. Return to text.

[172] Id. (Arkansas, California, Michigan, and North Dakota). Return to text.

[173] Id. Return to text.

[174] Id. In North Dakota, this requirement is only necessary for the first seven years after the initiative's enactment. Id. Return to text.

[175] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 151, at 296-297 tbl. 5.17. Return to text.

[176] Id.
StateConstitutionalStatutoryVote Based Upon Percent of:
Arizona15%10%total votes cast for governor in last election
Arkansas10%8%total votes cast for governor in last election
California8%5%total votes cast for governor in last election
Colorado5%5%total votes cast for the office of Secretary of State
Massachusetts3%3%total votes cast for governor in last election
Michigan10%8%total votes cast for governor in last election
Missouri8%5%total votes cast for governor in last election
Montana10%5%total votes cast for governor in last election
Nebraska10%7%total eligible voters
Nevada10%10%total voters at the last election
North Dakota4% 2%resident population
Ohio10%3%total electors
Oklahoma15%8%voters for the office receiving highest number of votes in last election
Oregon8%6%total votes cast for governor in last election
South Dakota10%5%total votes cast in last gubernatorial election

Id. Return to text.

[177] Id. (Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota). Return to text.

[178] Id. (Arizona, California, Missouri, Nebraska, Michigan, Oregon, and Arkansas). Return to text.

[179] Id. (i.e., Arkansas and Nebraska). Return to text.

[180] Id. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, and South Dakota). Return to text.

[181] Id. (Florida). Return to text.

[182] Division of Elections Interview, supra note 7. . Return to text.

[183] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 297 tbl. 5.17. Return to text.

[184] Id. (Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Ohio). Return to text.

[185] Id. Return to text.

[186] In Wyoming, initiatives may not dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, or enact local or special legislation. WYO. STAT. § 22-24-101 (1993). Similarly, the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits citizen initiative proposals relating to religion, the appointment of judges, reversal of judicial decisions, powers and creation of courts, local matters, and specific appropriations. MASS. CONST. art. 48, pt. V, § 2. The Missouri Constitution does not permit appropriation initiatives unless new sources of revenue are also included. MO. CONST. art. III, § 51. The Ohio Constitution does not permit initiatives that amend the state's property taxation method. OHIO CONST. art II, § 1(e). Return to text.

[187] ALASKA CONST. art. XI, § 7. Return to text.

[188] ILL. CONST. art. XIV, § 3. Return to text.

[189] OKLA. CONST. art. V, § 6. Return to text.

[190] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 362. Return to text.

[191] Id. at 366. Return to text.

[192] Id. Return to text.

[193] Id. Return to text.

[194] Id. Return to text.

[195] Id. at 5. California requires signatures of 8% of the registered voters for constitutional initiatives and 5% of that same group for statutory initiatives. COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 151, at 296, tbl. 5.17. Return to text.

[196] See DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 2. Return to text.

[197] Id. Return to text.

[198] Id. at 8. Return to text.

[199] Id. Return to text.

[200] .The National Conference on State Legislatures states that, since 1984, the electorate decided on 61 initiatives and adopted 11 of 26 constitutional initiatives and 14 of 35 statutory initiatives. Return to text.

[201] Id. at 1. Return to text.

[202] Telephone Interview with Melissa Melendez, Cal. Senate Off. of Research (Oct. 21, 1995) (notes on file with Fla. S. Comm. on Gov't Reform and Oversight, Tallahassee, FL) [hereinafter Melendez Interview]. Return to text.

[203] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 1. Return to text.

[204] Id. at 13. Return to text.

[205] Id. Return to text.

[206] Id. at 15. Return to text.

[207] Id. Return to text.

[208] Id. at 363. Return to text.

[209] Id. Return to text.

[210] Id. Return to text.

[211] Id. Return to text.

[212] Id. at 3. Return to text.

[213] Id. Return to text.

[214] Id. at 4. Return to text.

[215] Id. Return to text.

[216] Id. Return to text.

[217] Id. California is the only state that does not permit amendment of statutory initiatives without the general electorate's approval unless the initiative specifically allows legislative amendment. Id. at 366. Return to text.

[218] Melendez Interview, supra note 203. Return to text.

[219] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 297, tbl. 5.17. Return to text.

[220] ILL. CONST. art. XIV, § 3. Illinois has a direct constitutional initiative process. However, initiative amendments may propose changes only to article IV of the Illinois Constitution, which governs the legislative branch. Id. Mississippi has an indirect constitutional method; the Legislature reviews all proposals. MISS. CONST. art. XV, § 273. All proposals ultimately get ballot position, but only after public hearings, analysis, and an opportunity for the Legislature to propose alternative measures. Id. Return to text.

[221] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 296, tbl. 5.17. Return to text.

[222] Id. Return to text.

[223] Id. Return to text.

[224] Id. Return to text.

[225] Id. Return to text.

[226] Id. Return to text.

[227] FLA. STAT. § 100.371(2) (1995); DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 159, at 130.

Return to text.

[228] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 362. Return to text.

[229] Id. at 361. Return to text.

[230] Id. at 362. Return to text.

[231] Id. Return to text.

[232] Id. Return to text.

[233] See INITIATIVES & REFERENDA, supra note 31, at 158-160. Return to text.

[234] Id. Return to text.

[235] STURM, supra note 11, at 26. Return to text.

[236] Id. Return to text.

[237] Id. at 27. Return to text.

[238] See CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 35-52. Return to text.

[239] Id. at 54. Constitutional scholars, previous initiative committee members, interested parties and state officers identified these concerns in a survey about Florida's initiative process. Id. at 33-52. Return to text.

[240] Id. at 33-52. Return to text.

[241] Id. at 54 (quoting Professor Thomas C. Marks, Jr., Stetson University College of Law). Return to text.

[242] Id. Return to text.

[243] Nancy Maggiacomo, League Litigates on a Constitutional Question, FLA. VOTER, Fall 1994. Return to text.

[244] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 1993). Return to text.

[245] Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928, 942-47 (1968); FLA. ADVIS. COOUNICL INTERGVTL. REL., M-59 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS 28 (1988) [hereinafter STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES]. Return to text.

[246] STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS, supra note 256, at 29. Return to text.

[247] Id. Return to text.

[248] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 35-52 (including survey responses about the initiative process from selected scholars, former members of a Constitution Revision Commission, and other interested parties). Return to text.

[249] Stephen Maher, The Conference on the Florida Constitution, 68 FLA. B. J. 66 (1994). Return to text.

[250] Id. Return to text.

[251] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 55. Return to text.

[252] Id. Return to text.

[253] Id. at 54. Return to text.

[254] Id. Return to text.

[255] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 8. Return to text.

[256] Press Release from Public Affs. Research Inst. N.J., Inc., Princeton (March 13, 1995) (entitled $140 Million Spent on Citizen Initiative Questions) (on file with Fla. S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight, Tallahassee, FL) [hereinafter Press Release]. Return to text.

[257] Id. Return to text.

[258] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 44 (citing survey response from Sally Spener, Executive Director of Common Cause Florida). Return to text.

[259] Id. at 34-52. In fact, this same concern extends to proposals by the Legislature, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, and perhaps to a lesser extent, by the Constitution Revision Commission. Id. Return to text.

[260] Id. at 55 (quoting Barkdull, Thomas H., J., Fla. 3d Dis. Ct. App., Member, 1968 and 1978 Constitution Revision Commissions). Judge Barkdull was in attendance at the Leroy Collins Center for Public Policy forum on the Florida constitutional issues in Tallahassee, Florida, on March 6, 1995. Id. The Center conducted the forum to initiate discussion and thought in anticipation of the 1998 Constitution Revision Commission. Id. Return to text.

[261] Id. Return to text.

[262] Id. at 35-52 (reporting survey indications of much support for the single-subject limitation, although some persons are dissatisfied with the court's interpretation of the provision). Return to text.

[263] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 296; see also discussion supra part VI.C. (discussing other states' signature requirements). Return to text.

[264] See CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 42. See, e.g., ALASKA CONST. art. XI, § 7; WYO. STAT., § 22-24-101 (1994); ILL. CONST. art. XIV, § 3. In Alaska and Wyoming, for example, the constitutions prohibit initiatives from dedicating revenues, making or repealing appropriations, creating courts, or revising the judicial process. ALASKA CONST. art. XI, § 7; WYO. STAT., § 22-24-101 (1994). In Illinois, initiatives may only amend constitutional provisions governing the Legislature. ILL. CONST. art. XIV, § 3. Some similar restrictions on initiative amendments may be appropriate for Florida. CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 42. Return to text.

[265] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 42 (Professor Joseph Little, University of Florida College of Law, suggests restrictions on initiatives that affect the state's police or regulatory powers). Return to text.

[266] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3. Return to text.

[267] Fla. SJR 784 (1994); Fla. SJR 1730 (1994); Fla. HJR 383 (1994). Return to text.

[268] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 6. Return to text.

[269] See id. at 58. Former Governor Reuben Askew recently highlighted this issue at a conference sponsored by the Leroy Collins Center for Public Policy. Former Governor Askew lamented a concern that "anyone with enough money may put an issue on the ballot." This sentiment is shared by many. Return to text.

[270] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 46. Nancy Maggiacomo, President, League of Women Voters of Fla., stated that there is concern about the growing influence of monied interests such as "gambling interest and U.S. Sugar who clearly financed amendments which would personally benefit their industries." Id. Return to text.

[271] See id. at 59. Proposition for Limited Casinos ($16.5 million cash and $335,701 in-kind contributions); Florida Locally Approved Gambling ($3.1 million cash and $1.1 in-kind contributions); Save Our Sealife ($1.4 million cash and $303,349 in-kind contributions); Save Our Everglades ($1.3 million cash and $9,679 in-kind contributions; Home Rule Committee ($1.3 million cash and $170,275 in-kind contributions); Citizens for a Safe Florida ($1.02 million cash and $124,897 in-kind contributions); Tax Cap Committee ($62,640 cash and $1.26 million in-kind contributions). Id. Return to text.

[272] FLA. STAT. § 106.08 (1995). Return to text.

[273] See CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 40, 59 (quoting Professor Joel Mintz, Nova Southeastern University Law Center); id. at 42 (quoting Professor Joseph W. Little, University of Florida College of Law). Return to text.

[274] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 159, at 15. Return to text.

[275] Id. at 145. Return to text.

[276] INITIATIVES & REFERENDA, supra note 31, at 6-7. Return to text.

[277] Press Release, supra note 257. Return to text.

[278] Id. Return to text.

[279] Id. (reporting that $16.5 million spent by the Proposition for Limited Casino Committee was the most spent in 1994, and noting that the most ever spent was $35 million in 1988 for California's Proposition 104 to impose no-fault automobile insurance). Return to text.

[280] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 21. The California report recommends holding public hearings on the merits of any initiative once a committee collects 25% percent of the required signatures. Id. Several states issue pamphlets with unbiased summaries of initiatives. Id. at 364. However, Florida would incur significant costs conducting hearings and printing publications. Id. Return to text.

[281] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 59. Return to text.

[282] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 3 (requiring signatures of 8% of the electors in one-half of the state's congressional districts and in the state as a whole on a petition). Return to text.

[283] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 62. Return to text.

[284] Id. Return to text.

[285] Id. at 62. Return to text.

[286] Id. Return to text.

[287] Id. Return to text.

[288] Id. Return to text.

[289] Id. Return to text.

[290] Id. at 62. Return to text.

[291] Id.(reporting information provided by Kelly Kimball, President of Kimball Petition Management, a Los Angeles company which collected petition signatures for the Limited Casinos amendment defeated in November 1994). Return to text.

[292] See Democracy and Dollars, NEWS-PRESS, July 14, 1994, at. Return to text.

[293] Gary Fineout, Gambling Initiative Dies; Backers Blame Leon, TALL. DEM., Aug. 10, 1994, at A1. Return to text.

[294] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 63 (quoting Mary W. Morgan, Collier County Supervisor of Elections). Return to text.

[295] Id. Return to text.

[296] Id. Return to text.

[297] Id. Return to text.

[298] Id. (quoting Dot Ruggles, Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections). Return to text.

[299] Steve Nichol, Forgeries Found on Petitions, FT. LAUD. SUN SENT., July 6, 1994, at B1. Return to text.

[300] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 33. Return to text.

[301] Id. Return to text.

[302] Id. (quoting Ion Sancho, Leon County Supervisor of Elections). Return to text.

[303] Id. Return to text.

[304] Id. (quoting Ion Sancho, Leon County Supervisor of Elections, and Pam Iorio, Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections). Return to text.

[305] See State v. Wagner, No. C94-13176-AM1 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Mar. 29, 1995); State v. Eldridge, No. C94-12086-AM1 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1994); State v. Gaffney, No. C94-12087-AM1 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1994); State v. Grey, No. C94-12088 AM1 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1994); State v. Mitchell, No. C94-12089 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1994). Return to text.

[306] See supra note 306 and accompanying text.The individuals were required to do community service and to pay restitution to the Leon County Supervisor of Elections Office. Return to text.

[307] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 63. Return to text.

[308] 108 S. Ct. 1886 (1988). Return to text.

[309] Id. at 1892. Return to text.

[310] Id. Return to text.

[311] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 143 (citing N.C. CENT. CODE § 6.1-01-12 (1988)). Return to text.

[312] See LIMIT v. Maleng, 874 F. Supp. 1138 (W.D. Wash. 1994) (holding invalid a state law prohibiting payment to signature gatherers on a per-signature basis). Return to text.

[313] Fla. CS for HB 1237 (1995); Fla. CS for HB 2063 (1995); see also FLA. H. COMM. ON ETHICS AND ELECT., FLORIDA'S CITIZEN INITIATIVE PROCESS (1994) (on file with comm.). Return to text.

[314] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 33. Return to text.

[315] Id. Return to text.

[316] Fla. CS for SB 1392 (1995); Fla. CS for HB 1237 (1994). Return to text.

[317] Veto of Fla. SB 870 (1990) (letter from Gov. Martinez to Sec'y of State Jim Smith, July 2, 1990) (on file with the Sec'y of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Fla.). Return to text.

[318] CS for SB 870 (1990). Return to text.

[319] Id. Return to text.

[320] Id. Return to text.

[321] Id. Veto of Fla. SB 870 (1990) (letter from Gov. MArtinez to Sec'y of State Jim Smith, July 2, 1990) (on file with the Sec'y of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee,Fl.). Return to text.

[322] Veto of Fla. HB 1809 (1991) (letter from Gov. Chiles to Sec'y of State Jim Smith, May 29, 1991) (on file with Sec'y of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Fla.). Return to text.

[323] Fla. HB 1809 (1991). Return to text.

[324] Id. Return to text.

[325] Id. Return to text.

[326] FLA. STAT. § 99.097(4) (1995). Return to text.

[327] Id. Return to text.

[328] Id. Return to text.

[329] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 65. Return to text.

[330] Fla. State Assoc. of Supervisors of Elections, Inc., Legislative Agenda 1994-95 (1995) (recommending revision to laws to prohibit petition committees from filing an undue burden oath if they pay to get petitions signed) (on file with Fla. S. Comm. on Gov't Reform & Oversight). Return to text.

[331] FLA. STAT. § 99.097 (1995). Return to text.

[332] 582 F. Supp. 125 (M.D. Fla. 1984), aff'd, 759 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1985).

Return to text.

[333] Id. Return to text.

[334] Meyer v. Grant, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 1894 (1988). Return to text.

[335] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 65. Return to text.

[336] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 5; FLA. STAT. § 100.371(1) (1995). Return to text.

[337] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 5. Return to text.

[338] FLA. STAT. § 100.371 (1995). Return to text.

[339] FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 1C-7.0091 (1993). Rule 1C-7.0091 provides that the supervisors of elections must submit verified signatures to the Division of Elections no later than 5 p.m. of the 91st day preceding the general election. Id. Any certificate received late will not be eligible to fulfill the required number of signatures for any district or the state as a whole. Id. Return to text.

[340] Citizens Proposition for Tax Relief v. Firestone, 386 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1980). Return to text.

[341] Id. Return to text.

[342] Id. Return to text.

[343] Id. Return to text.

[344] Id. Return to text.

[345] Id. Return to text.

[346] Fla. CS for SB 1392 (1995); Fla. CS for HB 1237 (1995). Return to text.

[347] FLA. CONST. art. IV, § 10; FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3; FLA. STAT. §§ 16.061, 101.161 (1995). Return to text.

[348] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 35-52. Return to text.

[349] Id. at 40 (quoting John T. Ware, former state Senator and member of 1968 Constitution Revision Commission). Return to text.

[350] Id. at 42 (quoting Professor Joseph W. Little, University of Florida College of Law). Return to text.

[351] Id. Return to text.

[352] Id. at 49 (quoting David Biddulph, Chairman, Tax Cap Committee). Return to text.

[353] Id. at 37 (quoting Chesterfield Smith, Holland & Knight; former President, A.B.A.; Chairman, 1968 Constitution Revision Commission), (quoting Michael Levine of Proposition for County Choice Gaming, Inc.). Return to text.

[354] Id. Return to text.

[355] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitations, 694 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[356] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Limited Casinos, 656 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[357] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Property Rights, 644 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1994); Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Save Our Everglades Trust Fund, 636 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1994); Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[358] FLA. STAT. § 15.21(3) (1995). Return to text.

[359] See Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Casino Authorization, Taxation, and Regulation, 656 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 1995). This initiative was submitted to the court prior to collection of all required signatures; however, the court denied the ballot position to the petition because the title and summary were misleading. Id. Return to text.

[360] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 60. Return to text.

[361] Id. at 61. Return to text.

[362] Id. Return to text.

[363] Id. Return to text.

[364] Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitations, 694 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[365] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 61 (quoting Overton, J.). Return to text.

[366] Id. Return to text.

[367] Id. Return to text.

[368] Id. at 360. Alternatives for drafting ballot titles and summaries include having the secretary of state, the attorney general, or legislative bill drafting services assist in drafting initiatives. More expertise in drafting ballot titles and summaries would prevent misleading language. However, it can be argued that a true citizen initiative should be drafted by the sponsor. Return to text.

[369] Id. at 362. Most states with constitutional or statutory initiative processes impose a single-subject rule on the content of the proposals. Id. Most also have procedures for ballot title and summary review. Id. at 361. Return to text.

[370] Id. at 363. Return to text.

[371] Id. Return to text.

[372] Id. at 41 (quoting Professor Thomas C. Marks, Stetson College of Law). Return to text.

[373] Id. at 62. Return to text.

[374] Id. (quoting Talbot D'Alemberte). Return to text.

[375] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 35-52. Return to text.

[376] Id. at 40-41. Return to text.

[377] FLA. CONST. art. XI, § 5. Return to text.

[378] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 67. Return to text.

[379] Id. Return to text.

[380] DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, supra note 160, at 21. Return to text.

[381] Id. at 21 (recommending public hearings once the committee has gathered 25% of the required signatures). Return to text.

[382] Id. Return to text.

[383] Id. at 67. Return to text.

[384] Id. at 67-68 (quoting Tom Sander, Editor, Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel). Return to text.

[385] Id. Return to text.

[386] Id. at 68. "Plain talk" would be clear language which the average citizen could understand. Id. Return to text.

[387] Id. at 47-49. Former state Senator Marlene Woodson-Howard responded in the committee's survey that the initiative process "has become something which can be bought by special interests." Id. at 47. David Biddulph, Chairman, Tax Cap Committee, responded that the process "is too uncertain, difficult, and expensive" for the average citizen to use. Id. at 49. Return to text.

[388] Id. at 68. Tom Sander stated that, for the 1992 election, California's secretary of state published a plain-talk pamphlet explaining 13 amendments that cost $4.32 million. Id. Return to text.

[389] Id. at 41. Professor Thomas C. Marks, Jr., Stetson University College of Law, stated "many proposed changes can appear reasonable on their face when a little thought would show that if they are placed on the ballot and ratified, they could wreck havoc on the ability of government to carry out its functions." Id. Return to text.

[390] See Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620 So. 2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 1993) (McDonald, J., concurring). Return to text.

[391] Id. Return to text.

[392] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 54. Return to text.

[393] Id. at 41 (quoting Professor Thomas C. Marks, Jr., Stetson University College of Law). Return to text.

[394] Id. at 35-52. Survey respondents who concur with considering the development or implementation of a statutory initiative include: constitutional scholars, former members of the constitution revision commissions, attorneys representing parties to the recent court hearings on initiatives, and some representatives of citizen initiative committees. Id. Return to text.

[395] FLA. H. COMM. ON ETHICS AND ELECTIONS, FLORIDA'S CITIZEN INITIATIVE PROCESS 22 (1994). Return to text.

[396] COUNCIL OF STATE GOV'TS, supra note 152, at 296. Return to text.

[397] See discussion supra part V.D. Return to text.

[398] CITIZEN INITIATIVE, supra note 3, at 73. Return to text.

[399] Id. Return to text.

[400] Id. Return to text.

[401] Id. Return to text.

[402] Id. at 73. Return to text.

[403] Maher, supra note 63. Return to text.

[404] Id. Return to text.

Back to the Law Review home page | Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format