Abortion rights groups have their request for a judge to rule on the legality of a financial impact statement rejected

By Jim Saunders ©2024 The News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE — An appeals court Wednesday rejected a request by abortion-rights supporters to allow a circuit judge to rule on the legality of a revised “financial impact statement” that would appear on the November ballot with a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion.

The 1st District Court of Appeal quickly denied a request filed Wednesday by Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee sponsoring the proposed constitutional amendment. The request came two days after a state panel issued a revised financial impact statement that Floridians Protecting Freedom contended was “highly politicized and unlawfully inaccurate.”

A lawsuit about an earlier version of the statement has been pending at the appeals court. After the revised statement was finalized late Monday, the appeals court on Tuesday ordered lawyers for the state and Floridians Protecting Freedom to file briefs this week about whether the case is moot.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, however, filed a motion Wednesday asking the Tallahassee-based appeals court to “relinquish jurisdiction” to the circuit judge for a ruling on the revised statement.

“In short, we are now weeks closer to the election yet no closer to a lawful statement,” attorneys for Floridians Protecting Freedom wrote in the motion. “The circuit court should have the opportunity to address this continued violation of the sponsor’s rights.”

The appeals court did not explain its decision for denying the motion but reiterated that the two sides should file briefs this week about whether the case is moot.

Financial impact statements, which usually receive little attention, provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. They are drawn up by a state panel known as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference.

The panel in November 2023 released an initial statement for the abortion proposal, which will appear on this fall’s ballot as Amendment 4. But on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed a six-week abortion limit to take effect.

Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit in April arguing that the November financial impact statement needed to be revised because it was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed with the committee, but the state appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal, where the case has been pending.

Amid the case, Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, and House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, directed the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to begin meeting again to revise the statement.

But the meetings became contentious, with representatives of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office and the Florida House successfully pushing to include information in the revised statement about issues such as potentially costly lawsuits that could result if the amendment passes. DeSantis and other Republican leaders oppose the amendment.

The revised statement drew heavy criticism from Floridians Protecting Freedom and its “Yes on 4” campaign.

“What should have been an easy administrative fix on outdated (financial impact statement) language has become a dirty trick to mislead voters.” Lauren Brenzel, campaigns director for Yes on 4, said in a prepared statement.

In appealing Cooper’s ruling on the initial financial impact statement, lawyers for the state contended that the circuit judge did not have legal jurisdiction to order a redrafted statement. If the case is not moot, that issue would need to be resolved by the appeals court.

The proposed constitutional amendment says, in part, that no “law shall 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.”

In part, the revised financial impact statement says there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”