The fight over the “financial impact statement” that was set to appear on the November ballot with a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights has come to an end. On Monday, an appeals court refused to take up the case, stating that it was no longer relevant since the statement was revised last week.
The 1st District Court of Appeal’s three-judge panel has raised the prospect that Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee that sponsors the proposed constitutional amendment, may initiate a new legal challenge against the altered statement. Furthermore, the State may reiterate its claims that a circuit judge lacks the jurisdiction to rule on such matters.
Judges Stephanie Ray, Ross Bilbrey, and Susan Kelsey ruled on Monday that Floridians Protecting Freedom, the appellees, can bring up new claims about the revised financial impact statement in a separate proceeding. They also stated that state officials, the appellants, can once again raise their arguments concerning the circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction in a case where there is an actual controversy presented.
Last week, Floridians Protecting Freedom and the state’s lawyers filed briefs arguing that the appeal was not moot. Floridians Protecting Freedom explicitly stated that it will dispute the modified statement, claiming it to be politicized and inaccurate.
According to the Floridians Protecting Freedom brief, the sponsor is determined to utilize all legal means at its disposal, which includes initiating a fresh lawsuit if required, to uphold its legal entitlement to a comprehensible and unequivocal representation of its amendment on the ballot.
Proposed constitutional amendments’ estimated effects on government revenues and the state budget are usually found in financial impact statements. However, the abortion impact statement has garnered controversy as Floridians Protecting Freedom advocates for an amendment that would establish abortion rights in the state Constitution. Despite typically receiving minimal attention, the abortion impact statement has become a significant point of contention.
In November 2023, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, a group of economists, released an initial statement regarding the proposed amendment. However, on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that permitted a six-week abortion limit to be implemented.
In April, a lawsuit was filed by Floridians Protecting Freedom, stating that the financial-impact statement in November needed to be updated due to the Supreme Court ruling. The lawsuit was successful, as the Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to create a revised version.
The state lawyers filed an appeal, contending that Cooper lacked the legal power to issue the said order. Meanwhile, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference was directed by the legislative leaders to revise the statement amidst the ongoing appeal.
Last week, the conference finalized the revisions to the document, but it faced severe backlash from Floridians Protecting Freedom. The modifications were made by conference members who were representing Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida House. It should be noted that DeSantis and other Republican leaders in the state were against the amendment.
Following revisions, the appeals court located in Tallahassee has ordered both parties to submit briefs concerning the mootness of the appeal resulting from the initial version. As of Monday, the court has announced that it abstained from “exercising our jurisdiction to decide a moot question.” Consequently, the appeal has been dismissed.
Although Cooper’s dismissal has occurred, it still leaves the question unanswered regarding his capability to scrutinize and mandate modifications to financial impact statements.
According to the state’s lawyers, the case should not be dismissed as moot because the legal issues surrounding Cooper’s authority are expected to arise again. This includes a potential challenge from Floridians Protecting Freedom regarding the updated statement.
According to the brief, the matter of the circuit court’s authority is highly likely to arise again. The sponsor of the amendment has already stated that they believe the revised statement still violates Florida law and will challenge it as soon as the appeals court allows them to do so. While it’s not necessary for the issue to arise between the same parties, it’s clear that it will happen in this case.
Amendment 4, also known as the proposed constitutional amendment, will be featured on the ballot. It includes a provision that prevents the enactment of any law that would impede, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion prior to viability or when it’s determined to be necessary for the patient’s health by the healthcare provider.
The modified financial impact statement highlights that there is ambiguity regarding the necessity of using public funds to support abortions due to the amendment. Resolving these uncertainties through legal action will lead to additional expenses for the state government and state courts, which will have a detrimental effect on the state budget. Furthermore, an escalation in abortions could have an adverse impact on the growth of state and local revenues in the long run. Since it is difficult to estimate the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs with accuracy, the overall effect of the proposed amendment remains uncertain.
