Florida's Supreme Court justices keep secret what they say to one another around their conference table, so others can only speculate how they debated the high-speed rail initiative.

Did it sound, perhaps, like this?

Legislators have been bashing us for knocking things off the ballot. Let's leave this turkey on, and we'll show them.

But of course our Supreme Court would never stoop to mischief like that.

Nonetheless, Tuesday's 6-1 decision allowing the rail initiative to remain on the Nov. 7 ballot defies the relentless logic that the court normally applies to such questions.

The proposition's title, in speaking of a "statewide high speed" system, is in obvious and serious conflict with the summary and the text, which specify service to the "five largest urban areas." Depending on how the census turns out, or on whether the Legislature defines Miami and Ft. Lauderdale as separate urban areas, that could exclude everything north and west of Orlando. It was sophistry for the court to pretend that a "major portion" means the same as "statewide."

No initiative the court ever approved went as far as this one in limiting the discretion of multiple branches of government. Dissenting, Justice Major Harding warned that the provision would leave the governor powerless to veto anything the Legislature passed in response to the initiative. If that doesn't violate the single-subject rule, what would?

It was on similar grounds that the court only three years ago blocked an initiative to earmark 40 percent of the budget to education. What's different now? Only that the rail amendment doesn't specify how much the Legislature must spend and the governor must approve. That's a distinction, not a difference.

For these and other reasons, the "Florida Transportation Initiative" is a hideous example of what does not belong in the Constitution. The initiative process is appropriate to change the basic powers of government or to define the public's rights, as -- for example -- the right to education. It is a gross abuse to use it as a multibillion-dollar blank check for a specific public works project of unknown cost and arguable benefit.

Not even the Constitution Revision Commission had the nerve to try to reform the initiative process, which has become something of a populist third rail, but that job clearly remains to be undertaken.

Meanwhile, it's up to the voters on Nov. 7 to reject this latest misuse. High-speed rail sounds great in the abstract and might prove wise in some future context, but that time isn't now. Gov. Jeb Bush correctly exercised his discretion in killing the state's official bullet train plan, which would have cost an estimated $6.3-billion just to link Tampa, Orlando and Miami. It was rich with details, and yet there were still too many vital unknowns, such as potential ridership, to have responsibly proceeded with it.

Now, Floridians are being asked to leap to an incredibly costly conclusion with scarcely any details beyond that the trains would have to serve the five largest urban areas as defined by the Legislature and run at 120 mph or better.

What if they ran at, say, only 115? Would that entitle any citizen to sue? What if the Legislature, recoiling at the cost, or coping with a recession, did nothing? Would the courts be obliged to impound the budget, garnish tax receipts, sell bonds and appoint a receiver to design and build the system? Perhaps not, but in that event the Legislature would be defying the express will of the voters, which would not be a healthy development for an increasingly cynical electorate.

The Times strongly recommends a "no" vote on Proposal 1.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page