Court strikes tax issues from ballot
Proposals to change the sales tax and homestead exemptions are killed while amendments on minimum wage, malpractice and the high-speed rail were cleared.
By ALISA ULFERTS
Published July 16, 2004
TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday blocked two tax issues from going on the November ballot, but cleared the way for proposals to increase the minimum wage and repeal a high-speed rail initiative voters approved four years ago.
The court approved the wording of three other proposed amendments related to medical malpractice.
None of the amendments approved by the court are guaranteed spots on the Nov. 2 ballot. Supporters must first collect 488,772 valid signatures. Some said they are well on their way to reaching that goal.
One of the measures the court blocked Thursday was backed by a coalition of former elected officials who are concerned the state's tax structure is unfair and inadequate.
The measure would have required the Legislature to review the state's patchwork of sales tax exemptions every 10 years and would have required a three-fifths vote to authorize or renew any exemption.
The business lobby that benefits from sales tax exemptions was united against the measure, which was backed by former state Senate President John McKay, former Sen. Jack Latvala, former Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth and former Comptroller Bob Milligan.
McKay said he was surprised at the court's decision because several former Supreme Court justices assured him the language would pass legal muster.
"Once again the special interests have won," McKay said.
In its unanimous ruling, the court said the measure violated the Constitution's requirement that citizen initiatives stick to a single subject. The court said the matter actually dealt with three subjects: It would require lawmakers to review exemptions; it would create a new sales tax on services; and it would limit lawmakers' ability to create or continue exemptions to the state's 6-cent sales tax.
Gene Adams, a Tallahassee lawyer who represented a coalition of mostly agribusiness interests opposed to the amendment, said it was a backdoor tax increase.
"It basically said everything is taxed unless the Legislature says it isn't," Adams said. "This whole issue of trying to raise taxes without going through the legislative process is offensive."
Florida TaxWatch, a business-backed, Tallahassee watchdog of government spending, said the amendment could have imposed new taxes worth $19-billion.
"This was an attempted shortcut of due process that would've put Florida taxpayers at a clear and overwhelming disadvantage," said TaxWatch president Dominic Calabro.
The other tax initiative, the brainchild of Vero Beach millionaire businessman Jeffrey Saull, proposed to double the homestead exemption for Florida homeowners from $25,000 to $50,000. It was opposed by local governments and school districts worried about the potential loss of $2-billion in revenue.
The court said the measure was misleading because the ballot language said it would bring tax relief, though that wasn't guaranteed. Local governments could increase tax rates to offset lost revenue, wiping out any savings, the court said in its 5-2 ruling.
Saull's wife, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Karen Saull, vowed to keep fighting.
"While the decision of the Florida Supreme Court today is a setback for millions of Florida homeowners seeking relief from skyrocketing property taxes, I believe the fight for lower taxes can and must go on, both at the state and federal level," Karen Saull said in a statement.
The decision prompted a sigh of relief from Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association. The amendment would have cost Florida's 67 school districts at least $803-million a year, Blanton said, forcing the layoff of between 14,000 and 15,000 school employees if the districts were unable to make up the difference.
"Half of those would be teachers," Blanton said of the layoffs. "We're very pleased with the ruling."
One initiative the court approved seeks to raise the state minimum wage by $1 to $6.15 and tie future increases to inflation. The proposal is spearheaded by the Florida chapter of ACORN, a nationwide advocacy group for low- and moderate-income people. The hourly wage increase would cover all employees in the state now covered by the federal minimum wage.
Floridians for All, a political committee financing ACORN's effort, is supported partly by AFSCME, the nation's largest public employee union and a bulwark of Democratic politics. Organizers acknowledge the initiative could draw people to the polls - especially minorities and the poor - who typically are less likely to vote.
The initiative already has drawn more than 975,000 signatures, which have been turned over to state officials for verification, said Florida ACORN head organizer Brian Kettenring.
"It's tremendous," Kettenring said of the court's ruling. He predicted easy passage in November. "Our polling shows that voters overwhelmingly support the initiative."
The court also approved the wording of a proposal backed by Gov. Jeb Bush and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher to repeal the high-speed rail amendment voters approved in 2000.
The other ballot measures the court left in place represent a series of battles between trial lawyers and doctors, neither of which are satisfied with the legislation that came out of last year's marathon medical malpractice special sessions.
One measure would require records of incidents in which patients are harmed in a medical facility to be made public. Hospitals and other facilities must report such adverse incidents to the state, but those records are currently shielded from Florida's public records law.
Another initiative, also backed by the state's trial lawyers, would require doctors to charge to all patients the lowest rate they have negotiated for a particular service with an insurance plan, regardless of whether a patient is covered by that insurance company.
The third medical malpractice initiative, this one backed by the state's medical lobby, would require that plaintiffs get at least 70 percent of the first $250,000 of all damages awarded in a medical malpractice case, and at least 90 percent of all damages awarded above $250,000. This would cut heavily into lawyers' contingency fees on medical malpractice cases.
More initiatives could make the ballot. At least one already has enough signatures to trigger Supreme Court review. It is a measure that seeks to require a referendum to change local comprehensive land-use plans.
Under state law, the court can deny ballot access to a citizen initiative only if it is found to deal with more than one subject or if the ballot language is unfair or provides inadequate information to voters.
The court cannot consider a measure's merits.
Off the Ballot:SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS: Would have required the Legislature to review sales tax exemptions every 10 years and a three-fifths vote of lawmakers to renew existing exemptions or add new ones. The court blocked the amendment because it violated the constitution's single-subject rule for amendments.
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION: Would have doubled the $25,000 homestead exemption. The court said the wording of the ballot language was misleading because it said the measure would provide tax relief while some property owners could pay more taxes if rates increased.
Still alive:REPEAL BULLET TRAIN: Would repeal constitutional amendment voters approved in 2000 mandating a high-speed rail system.
RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE: would increase state minimum wage by $1, to $6.15 and ties future increases to inflation index.
LAWYERS' FEES: Would limit lawyer contingency fees to 30 percent of the first $250,000 in all medical malpractice damage awards and 10 percent of all damages above $250,000.
MEDICAL ADVERSE INCIDENTS: Would allow public access to records of patient injuries by health care providers and facilities.
PHYSICIAN CHARGES: Would require doctors to charge patients the lowest fee negotiated with a health insurance plan services regardless of whether the patient is covered by the plan.