Supporters of a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution squared off Wednesday against the DeSantis administration before a Leon County circuit judge in a lawsuit accusing the state of illegally using public resources to spread “misinformation” about the ballot measure.
The lawsuit, filed this month by attorneys for the Floridians Protecting Freedom political committee, seeks a temporary injunction to prevent the Agency for Health Care Administration from continuing to disseminate the information online and through television and radio ads.
Daniel Marshall, a lawyer who represents the committee, told Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom that the state has “unconstitutionally entered the debate” over what will appear as Amendment 4 on the November ballot.
“First, it has abandoned any semblance of neutrality and instead is now engaging in electioneering and advocating against the amendment through ads on TV and radio and on the internet,” Marshall, an attorney with Gainesville-based Southern Legal Counsel., argued.
Also, the state’s website “contains false and misleading information” about the proposal, Marshall said.
“While the state has the authority to educate voters about ballot initiatives, in this case it has gone way beyond education. Legally, the state may only conduct educational activities in a way that is neutral, and it has gone beyond that here,” he added.
Gov. Ron DeSantis is spearheading efforts to try to defeat the proposed amendment, which in part would bar laws that “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider.”
The state agency’s website includes numerous warnings about the proposal. As an example, it alleges the measure would “lead to unregulated and unsafe abortions.”
The ads and the website include “politically charged rhetoric, words like ‘fear mongering’ and ‘lies,’ painting supporters of Amendment 4 as being dishonest and deceptive,” Marshall argued.
The state “may not unduly burden the people’s rights” to propose amendments to the Florida Constitution, he said.
“The constitutional right to propose ballot initiatives would really be a nullity if the government were allowed to interfere and really bring the full force of the state behind a campaign to defeat the initiative itself,” Marshall said.
But Clark Hildabrand, an attorney for the DeSantis administration, argued that the government hasn’t done anything to prevent the proposal from making it onto the November ballot.
“Florida will have a fair vote on Amendment 4 because nothing that plaintiff complains about has anything to do with the proposal,” Hildabrand, an attorney with the Cooper & Kirk, PLLC firm, told the judge.
Hildabrand said it is “commonplace” for executive officials “to opine” about proposed amendments, just as they do about proposed legislation.
“Plaintiff tries to recast a fair vote to mean that a vote is unfair if any government official says anything anywhere about the proposed amendment that the amendment sponsor disagrees with or thinks is misleading. That is not the law,” Hildabrand said, adding that the “Florida Constitution allows, even requires, public agencies to express their views about public policy.”
Sjostrom did not issue a decision Wednesday but said he would “do his best” to make a ruling soon.
“I know that it’s an urgent matter, and I will rule as quickly as I can,” he said.
DeSantis and his chief of staff, James Uthmeier, also are leading opponents of a ballot proposal, Amendment 3, that would allow recreational use of marijuana. Uthmeier is chairman of two political committees that have raised millions of dollars aimed at defeating the measures.
The state’s efforts to quash the marijuana proposal also are drawing heat.
Attorneys for the Smart & Safe Florida political committee, which is sponsoring the marijuana measure, sent cease-and-desist letters to more than 50 television stations running Florida Department of Transportation public-service ads that warn against driving while under the influence of pot.
The letters accused the state of “deploying … propaganda as a ruse to obtain the highly discounted rates for public service announcements” to aid a group known as No on 3 “and amplify the political campaign’s messaging at taxpayers’ expense.”
The ads say that DUI crashes increase in states that legalize marijuana use.
“The use of taxpayer dollars for a brazen political purpose is antithetical to democracy, contradicts state policy, and violates Florida statutes,” attorney Glenn Burhans, who represents Smart & Safe Florida, wrote in Tuesday’s letters.
The ad campaign is “intended to influence the election by scaring citizens to vote against Amendment 3,” Burhans wrote.
“In doing so, the state is using taxpayer funds to tread upon the power of the people to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative,” he added.
According to Burhans, the stations were also provided with a “neutral” ad about driving under the influence. His letter asked stations to give proponents of Amendment 3 “equal time for support of Amendment 3 on the same terms” offered to opponents of the measure.
