Photo by iStock / Getty Images Plus
Election season intersected with hurricane season in Leon County on Wednesday.
With just weeks to go before Florida voters decide the fate of abortion rights in the state, attorneys squared off remotely before Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom arguing the merits of a state webpage on proposed Amendment 4 that proponents of the initiative want taken down.
The ACLU of Florida and Southern Legal Counsel filed the lawsuit earlier this month against the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) on behalf of Floridians Protecting Freedom, the amendment sponsor.
Southern Legal Counsel attorney Daniel Marshall and Clark Hildabrand with the Cooper and Kirk law firm in Washington, D.C., who represents the state, presented their arguments for about an hour. The case was heard even though courts throughout the Panhandle shut down on Wednesday in advance of Hurricane Helene.
Sjostrom did not rule from the bench but assured counsel for both sides that they wouldn’t have to wait long for a decision. Local election supervisors from across the state are about to start sending out mail-in ballots ahead of the Nov. 5 election.
Leon County Courthouse, March 11, 2022. Photo by Michael Moline/Florida Phoenix
“The election is here and I will do my best to rule quickly and issue a written order as quickly as I can,” Sjostrom said. “As soon as I can get it done, as soon as I have access to a filing system.”
Otherwise, Sjostrom mostly listened as the counsel presented their points.
Marshall argued that the website, which warns that Amendment 4 could threaten women’s safety if passed, and television and radio advertisements pushed by the agency, violate the public’s right to amend the Florida Constitution, an “exercise of balancing the power and the rights of the people against the government.”
AHCA has countered that the webpage educates the public about the amendment and doesn’t mislead the voters. But if the state wants to educate voters about proposed amendments those efforts must be neutral, Marshall argued.
“It has gone way beyond that here,” Marshall said.
Hildabrand, though, insisted the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis has not interfered with FPF’s ability to amend the constitution.
Fair vote
“Florida will have a fair vote on Amendment 4, because nothing that plaintiff complains about has anything to do with the process of proposing Amendment 4 or placing it on the ballot,” he said.
“[The] plaintiff tries to recast a fair vote to mean the 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. The Florida Constitution allows, even requires, public agencies to express their views about public policy.”
The abortion access initiative is one of the most hotly contested proposed amendments Florida voters will consider as both sides spend money trying to sway voters. DeSantis and Republican leaders have used their muscle to oppose the proposed amendment, which, if approved by 60% of the voters, would ban government interference with abortion up to the point of viability, or about 24 weeks’ gestation.
It would set aside Florida’s six-week abortion ban that was signed into law by DeSantis before his failed presidential campaign.
Second case
This is one of two legal battles underway surrounding efforts to defeat the amendment that was pushed following strict limits on abortion put in place by DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature. Palm Beach County lawyer Adam Richardson has asked the Florida Supreme Court to block AHCA’s efforts against the abortion rights amendment.
Lawyers for Moody filed a sharply worded rebuttal late Monday in that case, defending the state’s action. Liberty Counsel and the related Liberty Counsel Action, which focus on religious-rights litigation, filed an amicus brief with the high court this week also arguing the First Amendment protects the webpage.
Richardson on Wednesday responded to the amicus brief.
“Just because a case has something to do with abortion does not mean Liberty Counsel has something useful to say,” Anderson wrote in the brief.
Anderson wrote that the court should deny the proposed amicus brief because it reiterates arguments already made by the state. “So, Liberty Counsel’s proposed amicus is just a ‘me too’ brief, and it does not contribute anything.
However, the justices later Wednesday OK’d Liberty Counsel to participate.