Supreme Court Studies Tax Cap

TALLAHASSEE | A day after election polls closed, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what could be one of the hottest issues on the state 2010 ballot if justices approve it.

The proposal is a citizen initiative that would cap property taxes at 1.35 percent of the highest taxable value of a home, business or other real estate, although voters could approve exceptions.

Petition sponsors say tax cuts ordered by law last year and through another state constitutional amendment passed in January don't go far enough.

A financial impact statement, also under high court review, says the proposal would cost local governments at least $6 billion a year.

The justices will determine only if it covers a single subject and has a clear and accurate title and ballot summary.

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Grimes, now in private law practice, argued it misses the mark on both counts. He represents the Florida League of Cities, Florida School Boards Association and Florida Association of Counties.

The proposal covers more than one subject because it affects state as well local governments and their budgeting process besides limiting taxes, Grimes said. He noted it would require the Legislature to decide the distribution of tax revenues in areas where voters allow the cap to be exceeded.

"This court has said consistently that citizen initiatives are not designed to effect cataclysmic changes to our form of government," Grimes said. "The Legislature is being pulled into doing something it's never done before."

Grimes said the proposal does not qualify for an exemption to the single-subject requirement for revenue limiting initiatives. He cited a unanimous opinion the high court issued in a similar case when he was sitting on the bench in 1997. It says the exemption does not apply to measures affecting multiple branches or levels of government.

Daniel Woodring, the lawyer for the sponsoring group, Cut Property Tax Now, urged the justices to reverse the 1997 decision. "It's an advisory opinion," Woodring said. "It's persuasive, it's not binding."

Two justices who participated in the 1997 case, Harry Lee Anstead and Charles Wells, are still sitting on the seven-member high court. Woodring acknowledged it's going to be tough getting the justices to reverse it, but at least one agreed with his argument. Charles Canady, one of two justices recently appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist, called the 1997 ruling "nonsensical" and "an opinion without reasoning."

Grimes also faulted the ballot summary for failing to cite what part of the Florida Constitution the proposal would amend. Woodring said that's unnecessary due to the exemption for revenue-limiting initiatives.

The justices spent several minutes questioning Woodring about what exactly the amendment would do. Justice Barbara Pariente then asked how a voter could determine that if the justices couldn't figure it out just by reading the summary.