News
Florida judge orders review of abortion ‘financial impact statement’ – NBC 6 South Florida
A Leon County district judge ruled Wednesday that a “financial impact statement” that would accompany a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights needs to be reviewed, concluding that the statement is “inaccurate, ambiguous, misleading, unclear and confused.”
Judge John Cooper ruled from the bench after hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by the Florida Political Committee to Protect Liberty, which sponsored what will appear as Amendment 4 on the November ballot. The proposed change aims to guarantee the right to abortion.
Financial impact statements appear with ballot initiatives to provide estimated effects of the measures on government revenues and the state budget.
A state panel, known as the Financial Impact Estimation Conference, issued a financial impact statement for the abortion measure ahead of two key Florida Supreme Court rulings on April 1 on abortion issues.
The statement included warnings about litigation surrounding state abortion laws and concluded: “Because there are several possible outcomes related to this litigation that differ widely in their effects, the impact of the proposed change on state and local government revenues and costs, if any , cannot be determined.”
The Supreme Court on April 1 rejected a challenge to a 15-week abortion limit which lawmakers approved in 2022. That decision allowed a six-week abortion limit, approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Legislature last year, to take effect on May 1. on the November ballot.
Margaret Good, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, argued Wednesday that the financial impact statement should be rewritten because it provides “outdated information about the legality of abortion.”
“It states that the financial impact cannot be determined, when now it can,” Good, a former Democratic state representative, told Cooper. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida also represents the plaintiffs.
The statement reads, in part: “If the Court upholds the 2022 law, a 2023 law that further reduces the 15 weeks to 6 weeks will take effect 30 days later. This could lead to additional litigation.”
The statement’s discussion of possible litigation “is completely speculative” and unrelated to the ballot proposal, Good argued.
“It is the plaintiff’s right not for the amendment to pass, but for a clear and accurate amendment to reach voters, and this financial impact statement impedes voters’ ability to understand what they are voting for,” she said.
If approved by at least 60% of Florida voters, a November ballot initiative would guarantee access to legal abortion. It does not require abortion up to the moment of birth, as Governor Ron DeSantis has stated.
The Financial Impact Estimation Conference released the statement in the fall after conducting an analysis of a number of factors. A part of the analysis, which was not included in the statement, concluded that “cost savings are likely” for the state if the constitutional amendment is approved. The “magnitude of these savings” depends on whether the 15-week or 6-week restrictions are in place, the analysis said.
Cooper said Wednesday that the law restricting abortions after six weeks “exists” and the state panel “found that to be a net positive impact.”
“And then a tax statement that talks about the litigation, whether 15 (weeks) is effective or not, ‘we don’t know whether the 15 weeks are effective or not, we don’t know whether the six weeks are effective or not.’ … All of this, it seems to me, is inaccurate and now misleading,” the judge said.
Cooper said he would not specify how the panel should rewrite the statement.
“They have already done a thorough analysis of all the issues they face,” he said. “I’m not telling them what words to write. I’m not telling them what analysis to perform. I’m just saying it needs to be reviewed, given the current circumstances, which is the six-week bill that we all know is the law as I speak.”
Cooper gave attorneys for the defendants, who include members of the Financial Impact Estimation Conference, an opportunity to “argue that the financial impact statement is accurate and correct and not misleading.” None of the lawyers accepted the offer.
Cooper moved quickly in handling the process because county election supervisors can begin working on general election ballots on Aug. 29. Mail-in ballots will begin to be sent to voters in September.
The suit also alleged that Florida ballots in the past did not follow state law that required them to “separately contain” financial impact statements, and asked Cooper to require that the Amendment 4 statement be offset “through italics, asterisks, titles and/or other devices.”
But Cooper said he did not have that authority and rejected that part of the lawsuit.
Attorneys for Secretary of State Cord Byrd argued that the district court does not have jurisdiction over financial impact statements.
A document filed last month said only the Florida Supreme Court could legally review the financial impact statement. Furthermore, it stated that the Supreme Court decided in 2019 not to issue so-called “advisory” opinions on financial impact statements.
Cooper argued with Daniel Bell, an attorney with Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office who represents the state, about the matter on Wednesday.
“If your argument is correct, there is no way to expect the legal requirement that financial disclosure be accurate and not misleading. It could be said that Judge Cooper will pay any costs out of his pocket and that could go to a vote. Of course, that would never happen,” Cooper said.
Bell agreed that such a scenario would not occur.
“What I would say is there are a lot of important issues that cannot be judicially reviewed,” Bell said.
Floridians Protecting Freedom began efforts last year to pass the constitutional amendment after the six-week abortion limit was passed. The proposed amendment says that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the health of the patient, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.”