kurt s. browning v. florida hometown democracy · kurt s. browning v. florida hometown democracy...

Florida Supreme Court Oral Argument Transcripts

file:///Volumes/www/gavel2gavel/transcript/08-884.html[12/21/12 3:17:53 PM]

The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. Thisservice is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legaldocuments, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Kurt S. Browning v. Florida Hometown Democracy

>>THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT AGENDA IS BROWNING VS HOME TOWN DEMOCRACY.-->> I HAVE A BIG CONCERN ABOUT THIS SITUATION. THE IDEA AS YOU SAY THAT SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING IT IS VERY REASONABLE. IN FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY'S BRIEF, THEY STATE THE FOLLOWING, INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING A NEUTRAL PROCESS THAT ALLOWS FOR REVOCATION, AS TO ALL PENDING LEGISLATURE'S INITIATIVE. THEY SET UP A PROCESS WHEREBY A RIVAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO CIRCULATE A PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISING REVOCATION. ORDERS CANNOT DIRECTLY SUBMIT SIGNED REVOCATION PETITION TO THE RESPECTIVE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THEY MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE IN ADDITION ONCE A REVOCATION PETITION HAS BEEN SIGNED THE VOTER CANNOT SIGN THE SUBJECT INITIATIVE AGAIN TO RESTORE HIS OR HER INTENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IN PART, IT'S CORRECT. >> LET ME GO BACK TO THE FIRST PART WHICH IS THAT I SIGNED A PETITION FIVE DAYS AGO HYPOTHETICALLY. I DIDN'T. I MEAN, AND A WEEK LATER I READ SOME POLITICAL, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND I GO OH THAT'S NOT ONE I REALLY LIKE SO I WANT TO REVOKE MY SIGNATURE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I WASN'T DEFRAUD I'D JUST DON'T LIKE IT.



CAN I THEN GO TO MY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION AND GO ON THE WEB SITE AND MYSELF SIGN SOMETHING THAT SAYS I AM REVOKING MY SIGNATURE. >> YOU CAN UNDER THE 2008 LEGISLATURE. >> SO IT ISN'T CORRECT. SO IT ISN'T CORRECT THAT THE ONLY WAY I CAN REVOKE MY SIGNATURE IS IF I AM A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED TO, OR IS THAT CORRECT? >> LET ME EXPLAIN. UNDER THE 2000 LAW, THE LEGISLATURE SET UP A PROCESS BY WHICH A COMPETING ORGANIZATION CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH WHICH A REVOCATION FORM WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT CREATED THAT FORM AND THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY A PERSON COULD REVOKE THEIR SIGNATURE. >> OKAY NOW ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT 2000 LAW? >> 2007, RIGHT. >> YOU SAID UNDER THE -- >> INITIAL, RIGHT, UNDER THE FIRST -- >> BECAUSE TO ME, SEE, THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO THE FACT THAT THAT COMPETING PAC ISN'T BEING SET UP TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD. THAT COMPETING PAC IS SAYING YOU KNOW THIS MAY BE GOOD FOR ONE SEGMENT OF SOCIETY BUT LIKE AGAIN AND WE'RE SEEMS LIKE IT KEEPS ON COMING UP FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY IS WE DON'T LIKE THIS AND INSTEAD OF DEFEATING IT AT THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES ON THE BALLOT WE'RE GOING TO SET UP A WHOLE NEW PROCESS TO HAVE A COMPETING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE TO TARGET SOMETHING AND GET IT OFF THE, YOU KNOW, SO IT DOESN'T EVEN GO ON THE BALLOT SO THAT'S MY CONCERN, THAT IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY A RIGHT OF REVOCATION BUT IT'S SETTING UP THIS OTHER



POLITICAL PROCESS THAT'S NOT ENVISIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION. >> WELL, A COUPLE RESPONSES TO THAT. I BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE'S CONCERN INITIALLY WAS THEY COULD'VE DONE IT A NUMBER OF WAYS. ONE WAY IS JUST GIVE THEM THE RIGHT. IT COULD'VE BEEN UNLIMITED FOR THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD GIVEN THE FACT THAT FLORIDA HAS A LONGER SHELF LIFE YOU COULD REVOKE IT ANYTIME DURING THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD. THE LEGISLATURE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVE AGBALANCE THERE THAT THE ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTING REVOCATION WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER AND WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO SOME REGULATION AND THERE WOULD BE SOME EQUALITY BETWEEN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS. >> SO IS THAT PART OF THE SCHEME? IN ANSWER TO HER QUESTION? >> THAT S THAT'S THE INITIAL 2007 LEGISLATION, 2008 PATCHED WHAT SOME MIGHT CALL THE HOLE AND YOU CAN REVOKE. >> SO THERE ARE TWO WAYS NOW? >> RIGHT. >> SO WHY IS IT AGAIN IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN AND I DIDN'T REALLY THE FIRST DISTRICT DIDN'T REALLY MAKE THIS DISTINCTION DO YOU SEE A DISTINCTION BECAUSE I DO BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO DECIDE YOU KNOW UNSOLICITED THAT THEY WANT TO REVOKE BUT I DON'T --, AND THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU START TO HAVE A WHOLE OTHER PROCESS OF REVOCATION, THROUGH A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, WHETHER IT'S WELL INTENDED OR NOT, JUST LIKE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS WERE, INTENDED THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE TEST;, THAT IT HAS TO BE NECESSARY TO INTEND BALLOT INTEGRITY AND REASONABLE



REGULATION. SO CAN WE SLICE THIS THICK UP ONE PART THAT ALLOWS INDIVIDUAL REVOCATION, WITH A STATEMENT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS SIGNING SOMETHING OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE ELSE APPROACHED THEM AND THEN THE NEXT DAY SOMEONE ELSE APPROACHES THEM NOW THEY CAN'T SIGN BACK AGAIN SEEMS LIKE WE COULD HAVE A VERY, YOU KNOW, THAT ACTUALLY THEY WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF INTEGRITY IF WE KNOW ONE PERSON CALLS ONE DAY THE NEXT PERSON CALLS THE NEXT DAY. THE POOR CITIZEN IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY IS UP. >> I THINK IT GOES TO THE LEGISLATURE'S POWER TO REGULATE IN THIS AREA WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE FIRST DISTRICT GOT IT WRONG. REASONABLE REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION PROCESS. THIS IS ONE WAY THE LEGISLATURE COULD FEEL ABOUTDYING GO ABOUT DOING IT. >> THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS. >> THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS THE SIGNATURES COULD BE INVALID. >> IF IT'S OBTAINED BY FRAUD OR IT'S NOT THEIR SIGNATURE THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE VERIFICATION PROCESS IS TO ADDRESS THAT. THIS IS BROAD BECAUSE I SAY I CAN JUST REVOKE IF I DECIDE I CHANGE MY MIND BECAUSE SOMEBODY OR SOME GROUP HAS NOW SENT A LETTER TO ME THAT TELLS ME I SHOULD REVOKE IT. ISN'T THAT -- IT'S FAR GREATER THAN FRAUD. >> IT FOCUSED ON THE ELECTOR. IT EMPOWERS ELECTORS TO CHANGE THEIR MIND BECAUSE THEY MAYBE HAD BEEN DEFRAUDED MAYBE THEY HAD BEEN MORE INFORMED. >> IT IS NOT CORRECT THEY CAN NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND TO WHERE



THEY WERE. >> THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE THERE IS A FLORIDA STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU MAY ONLY SIGN ONE PETITION AND THE REASON IS THEY HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. THEY SIGNED THE PETITION BUT THEN THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND IN OTHER STATES LET'S KEEP IN MIND LET'S HAVE PERSPECTIVE OUT THERE THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE SAY IT'S AN IMPLIED INCIDENTAL RIGHT TO SIGN A PETITION TO WITHDRAW IT. ALMOST, I WON'T SAY UNIVERSAL RULE. >> WELL BUT DO THOSE SAY THEN YOU CAN'T RESIGN IT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND? >> THAT'S, THE COURTS ARE DIFFERENT ON THAT. AND SOME COURTS, THE FOLK HAS NOT BEEN WHETHER ON REVOCATION RIGHTS THE COURTS SAY THERE IS. THEY SAY THAT WHAT POINT IN TIME CAN YOU WITHDRAW? AFTER THE SIGNATURE HAS BEEN VERIFIED AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HOLDS HERE. THE FIRST DISTRICT GOT IT WRONG. THIS COURT HAS SAID REASONABLE REGULATIONS ON THE PROCESS ARE PERMISSIBLE. >> I KNOW THAT 2007 STATUTE SOMEBODY WANTS TO REVOKE THE PETITION THEY SIGN. HOW CAN THEY DO IT?I AM JUST THINKING ABOUT-- THEREARE 400,000 VOTES NOW.IF THE ACTION COMMITTEE TARGETSTHE 400,000 VOTES NOW WE HAVE ATLEAST IN THE RECORD TWO THAT ARESAYING I HAVE THE MISLEADINGADVERTISEMENTS AND NOW START TOHAVE LITIGATION OVER WHETHERTHAT VOTER WAS DEFRAUDED INTOREVOKING THE SIGNATURE AND MYCONCERN ABOUT IT IS THAT THE WAYTHIS SEEMS TO BE SET UP, IT



SEEMS TO, TO BE A BURDEN ON THEABILITY TO GET THINGS ON THEBALLOTS AND LET THE VOTERSDECIDE WHETHER IT IS A GOODTHING OR NOT A GOOD THING ANDCERTAINLY ANYTHING THAT HAS TODO WITH MY VOTE OBTAINED BYFRAUD OR IS MISLEADING, I MEANTO ME THERE SHOULD BE THAT RIGHTTO REVOKE UNDER THOSECIRCUMSTANCES.BUT, I DON'T SEE THIS, THIS GOESSO FAR, SO MUCH LATER THAN THATAND THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME ASFAR AS THE CASE LAW.>> IN FACT IF WE LOOK AT IT FROMTHE OTHER SIDE, THE LEGISLATUREFOR EXAMPLE NEEDS THESIGNATURE-- REVOCABLE UNDER ANYCIRCUMSTANCE.FURTHER, HERE THE GOVERNMENT-->> WHY?I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.IF SOMEBODY SIGNS SOMETHING JUSTTO GET ON THE BALLOT IT DOESN'TREQUIRE THEM TO VOTE FOR IT.>> OF COURSE NOT BUT THE REASONWE HAVE THE 8% IN THECONSTITUTION IS THAT THERE HASTO BE SIGNATURES BY THEELECTORS.IT IS ALMOST LIKE A CONSUMERSURVEY.YOU ARE SIGNING SOMETHING.I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANTARGUMENT ON THE BALLOT BUT IFTHE UNDERLYING INFORMATION ISINACCURATE, A PERSON CHANGES

THEIR MIND.THAT IS THE RULE UNDER STATES.THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS.IT IS NOT LIKE GOING TO A VOTINGBOOTH AND VOTING IN SECRET.PEOPLE MAY CHANGE THEIR MINDS SOTHE LEGISLATURE-->> DURING THAT FOUR YEARS THEYCOULD RECHANGE THEIR MIND.THAT IS ONE OF THECONSIDERATIONS THAT, SAY THISPACT, THIS OTHER GROUP THAT ISOPPOSED TO THE INITIATIVE GETSTO THE CITIZEN AND SAYS LOOK,THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU



REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVEDIN AND THEY REVOKE THEIRSIGNATURE, BUT SIX MONTHS LATERAND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGHSIGNATURES AND THEY DECIDE, YEAHTHIS IS SOMETHING THAT I REALLYWOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING ONTHE BALLOT.THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHTANYMORE.>> THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THELEGISLATOR IS BEING UNREASONABLEAND AFTER TWO ROUNDS-->> YOU ALSO OUGHT TO LOOK ATWHETHER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUTJUDGEMENT BEING UNREASONABLE.THE STANDARD IS WHETHER IT ISNECESSARY OR REASONABLE TOPROTECT BALLOT INTEGRITY AND SOTHE BALLOT INTEGRITY TO ME WOULDBE COMPROMISED IF THERE IS INFACT SOMEONE WHO COMES FORWARDAND SAYS LOOK, THAT IS NOT MYSIGNATURE OR I WAS COERCED ANDDEFRAUDED INTO SIGNING THIS.NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.THOSE WOULD BE THINGS THAT, TOME, WHAT AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OFTHE BALLOT.BUT NOT-- YOU KNOW AND I JUSTSAT HERE AND CHANGED MY MIND.>> JUSTICE, THAT IS THEUNDERPINNINGS OF THISLEGISLATION.COULD THEY HAVE LIMITED IT TOPEOPLE WHO CAME IN AND SAID IWAS DEFRAUDED?THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT, BUTWHAT THEY DID WAS EMPOWER THEVOTERS GENERALLY TO REVOKE-->> BUT WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUTIN THE BRIEF AND APPARENTLY INTHE RECORD, ONE OF THE VOTERSSAID, SOMEONE WHO SIGNED THEPETITION IN DIRECT MAIL FROM THEHONORABLE JOHN THRASHER, SPEAKEROF THE FLORIDA HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, WHO SAID--TURNS OVER ALL POWER TO USE OFFLORIDA LANDS TO CERTAINELECTORS.GUESS WHO THE ELECTORS WILL BE?SPECIAL INTEREST WILL PUT THEFUTURE IN THE HANDS OF THEIR



CRONIES.AND THE LAST PAGE OF THETHREE-PAGE LETTER IT ADDS--[INAUDIBLE]THIS IS NOW, NOW YOU HAVE ASITUATION WHERE, NOW YOU HAVE AQUESTION OF INTEGRITY OF THEREVOCATION PROCESS BECAUSE ITCLEARLY-- THE PART THAT ALLOWSIT TO GO THROUGH PACTS-- ONLYALLOWS IT TO GO THROUGH PACTS--HAS THE POTENTIAL THAT OBVIOUSLYTHOSE PEOPLE HAVE A POLITICALMOTIVE AGAINST THE PETITION.THEY ARE NOT DOING IT TO PROTECTTHE VOTER INTEGRITY.THEY HAVE A COMPETING POLITICALAGENDA.>> IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS.CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS IF YOU HAVETWO OR MORE PEOPLE TOGETHER YOUHAVE POLITICS.IT IS THE PROCESS, BUT THE FOCUSHAS TO BE ON WHETHER THEELECTOR-- THAT IS THEFUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-->> WHAT I AM STILL LOOKING AT ISTHE CONSTITUTION.JUST LIKE A FINANCIAL IMPACTSTATION COULD SET FORTH A POWEROF REPLICATION, AND WE COULD ALLSAY THAT IS WHAT WE WANT BECAUSEWE ARE ALL SICK OF THESECITIZENS' INITIATIVES.BUT I DON'T SEE HOW, UNDER THISRECORD, THERE IS THE MAIN MOTIVEIS JUST TO PREVENT OR TO ENSUREBALLOT INTEGRITY AND I GUESSTHAT THIS-- NOT BECAUSE, YES YOUARE ADMITTING IT IS POLITICAL.>> I AM SAYING THE PROCESS ISPOLITICAL.IT IS INHERENTLY A POLITICALPROCESS.WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS THERIGHT TO REVOKE THAT THELEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED HERE ISNECESSARY BECAUSE THEY FOUNDFRAUD.YOU HAD A CASE BEFORE YOU LASTYEAR IN WHICH THERE WEREALLEGATIONS OF MASSIVE FRAUD.>> DO I NOT UNDERSTAND, IF THEREIS FRAUD IN MANY SIGNATURES,



THAT IS EXACTLY WHY MR. BROWNINGAND THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAVETHE ABILITY TO NOT CERTIFY THESIGNATURE FOR THE BALLOT?I MEAN, ISN'T THAT THE REMEDY?>> IT HAS TO BE PROVEN.THIS COURT IN YOUR OPINION, ITIS A GAMBLING CASE.>> OF COURSE.YOU CAN'T JUST ALLEGE FRAUD.THE PERSON HAS TO SAY, I WASDEFRAUDED AND I MEAN THAT IS HOWIT SEEMS TO ME.THAT THAT IS WHY THIS IS FARBROADER THAN THE PROBLEM THATYOU HAVE SAID IT IS, SOWIDESPREAD.>> THE LEGISLATURE WAS SET UPTHAT WAY.IF I COULD BRIEFLY SAY THREEPOINTS ABOUT THE FIRST DISTRICT,THE REVOCATION ON THECONSTITUTION DOES NOT MATTERBECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BETHERE.THERE ARE SIGNATUREVERIFICATIONS THAT ARE NOTNECESSARY.THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THELANGUAGE.WHERE IS THE BURDEN ON THEPEOPLE, BECAUSE IF I SIGN ONE,AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT ITIS AND I SIGN IT, AND THEN THEGUY GETS SOME KIND OF SLICKADVERTISING I SAY WOW, I WILLSIGN THIS ONE AND LATER I FINDOUT THAT IT IS ADVERTISING.YOU HAVE CAUSED ME TO FORFEIT MYCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SUBMIT ASIGNED-FOR INITIATIVE.>> AT LEAST YOU HAD TWO CHANCES.CURRENTLY, BEFORE THISLEGISLATION YOU HAD NO CHANCE TOREBUT.EVEN IF SOMEONE FORGED IT, THEYWOULD SAY-->> I AM MISSING SOMETHING.I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THEREVOCATION PROBABLY HAS-- YOUCAN DO THOSE THINGS BUT WHEN YOUSTART COUPLING IT WITH THE OTHERTHINGS LIKE IT NEVER-- REALLYWHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS I HAVE



TWO AND YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOUWANTED TO DO BECAUSE I HAVE THISPIECE OF PAPER AND IT COULD BETHE REVERSE.>> WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTIONDOES IT SAY IT IS IRREVOCABLE?IT DOESN'T.>> IN THE CONSTITUTION I, ANDALL FLORIDA CITIZENS, HAVE THERIGHT TO SIGN A PETITION OR ANINITIATIVE.DOESN'T IT?>> EXACTLY.>> THIS SAYS I DON'T IF I HAVESIGNED ON A SECOND ONE.I CAN ALWAYS TAKE MY FIRST ONEBACK BUT I CAN'T TAKE THE SECONDONE BACK.[INAUDIBLE]ONE MORE FINAL POINT, BECAUSE IAM WELL INTO MY REBUTTAL, THEBURDEN ISSUE IS IMPORTANTBECAUSE THE SUMMARY FASHION SAIDTHERE IS A BURDEN, BUT THERE ISNO BURDEN ON THE ELECTOR.CLEARLY THEY HAVE TO PRESENTREVOCATION.25 PLUS PERCENT ARE INVALIDATEDUNDER THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATIONPROCESS.THAT IS PRETTY BURDENSOME, SO MYPOINT IS REVOCATION PERFORMSVERY MINIMAL PERCENTAGE OF THEVOTES THAT ARE REVOKED.>> MR. MAKAR, YOU ARE WELL INTOYOUR REBUTTAL IF YOU WOULD LIKETO SAVE ANY TIME.MR. BURNAMAN.>> GOOD MORNING MAAM.I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF LESLIEBLACKNER AND FLORIDA DEMOCRACYINCORPORATED.>> MY FIRST QUESTION ON THIS IS,HYPOTHETICALLY, MY SIGNATURE ISFORGED.IF WE HELD, OR HOLD THE FIRSTDISTRICT, IS THERE CURRENTLY NOREMEDY BY THE SECRETARY OF STATEOFFICE TO MOVE A FORGEDSIGNATURE?>> IT IS A CRIME TO FORGE ASIGNATURE IN BOTH THE FLORIDASTATUTE AND IN THE DEPARTMENT OFSTATES' RULES AND THE SECRETARY



OF STATE'S OFFICE IS CHARGEDWITH ENFORCING THE LAW TOPREVENT THAT FRAUD, SO IF THESIGNATURE WAS FRAUDULENTLY MADEON A PETITION IN ITS EXISTINGCRIMINAL REMEDY AND SOMEONEFINDS OUT-->> CAN THE SECRETARY OF STATEUNDER THE VALIDATION PROCEDUREHAVE THIS CURRENT REMEDY, NOTCOUNTING A FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE?>> THEY COMPARE THE SIGNATURE ONTHE PETITION FORM, JUSTICEPARIENTE, WITH THE SIGNATURE ONTHE VOTER REGISTRATION, AND THATIS DONE.THAT IS THE PRIMARY MEANS THATTHE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONSUSES.>> IF IT DOES NOT MATCH THEYSTRIKE IT?>> THAT IS CORRECT.>> THE LAST THING THAT HE SAID.ACTUALLY 25% OF THE VOTES WEREOBTAINED, ACTUALLY WERE NOTCAPABLE OF BEING VALIDATED?IS THAT RIGHT?>> THE SIGNATURES SUBMITTED FORVERIFICATION, HOW MANY WEREREJECTED?I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS IN THERECORD.>> APPARENTLY THERE IS A PROCESSFOR VALIDATING SIGNATURES THATARE OBTAINED.>> WE PAY 10 CENTS APIECEWHETHER THEY ARE VALIDATED ORNOT, JUST TO HAVE THEM CHECKED.>> SAY SOMEBODY-- SAY A PETITIONIS SUBMITTED THAT BEARS WHATAPPEARS TO BE MY SIGNATURE ANDTHE SIGNATORY LOOKS AT IT ANDSAYS THAT IS A MATCH AND IT GETSVALIDATED.AND I FIND OUT THAT THIS HASHAPPENED AND I DID NOT SIGN IT.IT IS A GOOD FORGERY AND ITCOULD PASS THEIR TEST.UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, CAN IGO IN AND SAY I DID NOT SIGNTHAT?THAT IS A FORGERY.WHAT HAPPENS IN THATCIRCUMSTANCE?



>> UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES YOUWOULD SWEAR OUT AN AFFIDAVIT ANDHAVE THE MATTER INVESTIGATEDCRIMINALLY.>> WOULD THAT SIGNATURE BECOUNTED TOWARD THE TOTAL THAT ISNEEDED?WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN REGARD TOTHE COUNT, GETTING IT ON THEBALLOT, GETTING THE INITIATIVEON THE BALLOT?>> ONCE THE SIGNATURE ISVERIFIED, AND IT IS NOT DONE BYTHE SECRETARY OF STATEINCIDENTALLY, IT IS DONE BY THERESPECTIVE SUPERVISOR OFELECTIONS.AND I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYINSTANCE WHERE THAT HASOCCURRED.LET ME JUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD ATALL.>> THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL.>> UNDER THAT HYPOTHETICAL, ONCEIT IS VERIFIED, I FIND OUT THATIT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BUT I KNOWTHAT IS NOT MY SIGNATURE AND IGO AND SAY THAT IS NOT MYSIGNATURE, IS IT STILL GOING TOBE COUNTED AS A GOOD SIGNATURE?>> THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONSPRESUMABLY HAS SOME SORT OFINHERENT POWER TO UNVERIFY THESIGNATURE.I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS EVERCOME UP.SIMILARLY, LET'S LOOK AT THEREVOCATION.>> LET ME GO OVER IT, YOU SEEBECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF BEING, ATLEAST I AM, PUBLIC POLICY APPEALOF THE SITUATION IS SOMETHING WEWOULDN'T WANT IN THE COURT.WE WOULD THINK THAT WOULD GO THEBALLOT INTEGRITY.SOMEBODY SAYING EVEN THAT WASNOT MY SIGNATURE OR THEY GAVE MEA WHOLE DIFFERENT PETITION.A CLEAR CASE OF FRAUD, SO IF YOUWOULD AGREE THAT WHATEVER WASENACTED WOULD NEARLY, AT LEAST ITHINK IT WOULD, WOULD NARROWLY



TAILOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THATSITUATION WAS ADDRESSED.AM I ON A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT ORNOT?>> I THINK YOU ARE BEING LEDDOWN THE PREMISE THAT, JUSTICEPARIENTE, WITH THIS WHOLEDISCUSSION OF FRAUD BECAUSE--JUST THINK ABOUT IT.I MEAN, THE POTENTIAL FORFORGERY IN AN INITIATIVEDECISION IS EQUAL TO THAT ON THEREVOCATION PETITION, SO RATHERTHAN PREVENTING FRAUD ANDINSURING INTEGRITY OF THECITIZEN INITIATIVE AND BALLOTVERIFICATION PROCESS, YOU ARESIMPLY COMPOUNDING THE PROBLEMBY HAVING THE SUPERVISORS HAVETO CHECK THE REVOCATION FORMSAND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY AREFRAUDULENT.>> OKAY, LET'S THEN GO AWAY FROMTHAT.LET'S ASSUME THAT THERE ISSOMETHING THAT SOME FOLKS WANTTO GET ON THE BALLOT AND THEYDECIDE, YOU KNOW, IF WE USEFOLKS DRESSED AS CLERGY OUTSIDEOR WHATEVER AND WE GET THESECOMING OUT, THAT IT ISMISLEADING, WHATEVER IT IS THATTHEY DO.THEY SIGN THESE THINGS AND LATERON THE PEOPLE FIND OUT WHAT THISIS REALLY ABOUT.ARE WE TOGETHER?A FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE, BUTTHERE IS SOME DECEPTION INVOLVEDWITH THAT.>> YES SIR.>> WOULD THEN SOME KIND OFLEGISLATION THAT ADDRESSES ANDSAYS WELL, IF THIS OCCURS AND APERSON ASSIGNS AND SAYS THISOCCURS TO ME, THIS IS NOT WHATTHEY TOLD ME THIS WAS ABOUTBECAUSE THERE ARE DISCUSSIONSTHAT GO ON THAT THE LEGISLATUREWOULD THEN BE PROHIBITED FROMPASSING LEGISLATION THAT WOULDPERMIT THE CITIZENS, SAY I DIDNOT SIGN ON TO THE ONE, ITHOUGHT I WAS SIGNING SOMETHING.



IT IS LIKE SIGNING A CHECK.THERE IS SOME AUTOGRAPH.I THOUGHT I WAS SIGNINGSOMETHING ELSE.NOW THAT SEEMS TO ME, WOULD THATNOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE ALWAYSTALK THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURETHAT THE CITIZENS KNOW WHAT THEYARE VOTING ON.>> WELL, THAT IS A HORSE OF ADIFFERENT COLOR.WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON OFCOURSE IS THAT BALLOT TITLE ANDCERTAINLY-- BUT WHEN AN ELECTORSIGNS AN INITIATIVE IN THE CASEOF A REVOCATION PETITION, THEYHAVE AN OBLIGATION TO READ THEDOCUMENT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT ISA CRIME IF HE SIGNED THE SAMEONE OR THE SAME PETITION MORETHAN ONCE.SO YES, PEOPLE DO PRESENT ANDSAY HERE, TRY THIS TO SAVE THEWORLD OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.WELL SURE THEY ARE GOING TO BETOLD THAT, BUT THE VOTER ISCHARGED WITH READING THECONTENTS.>> OKAY, SO YOUR ANSWER IS THELEGISLATURE COULD NOT DO THAT.YOU ARE SAYING THEY COULD NOTPASS LEGISLATION THAT WOULDALLOW THE REVOCATION TO OCCUR ATALL?>> NOT IN MY JUDGMENT BECAUSE ITHAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUTINTEGRITY.MOREOVER-->> AREN'T WE TALKING HERE ABOUTA POLITICAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLETO GET SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT?THAT IS WHAT IS UNDERLYING ALLOF THIS.THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA HAVERESERVED IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONTHE RIGHT FOR THEMSELVES TO GETISSUES ON THE BALLOT AND TOCHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTIONS.>> ABSOLUTELY, AND ARTICLE I,SECTION 1 IS THE MOST BASICRIGHT.ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3 SETS FORTHIN PLAIN MEANING HOW THATPROCESS IS DONE.



YOU OBTAIN THE SIGNATURE.>> IF I COULD FINISH.IT IS THEIR CONSTITUTION.SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEALINGWITH HERE.WHAT IS WRONG WITH THELEGISLATURE RECOGNIZING THATPEOPLE MIGHT CHANGE THEIR MINDSABOUT WHETHER THEY WANTSOMETHING ON THE BALLOT AND TOPROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THEM TOWITHDRAW THEIR SIGNATURE ON APETITION ON THE BALLOT?IN A WAY, IT IS JUST INDICATINGTHAT POLITICAL RIGHT THAT THEPEOPLE HAVE UNDER OURCONSTITUTION.NOW, YOU CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT THEWAY THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IT,HAVE THEY GONE TOO FAR OR NOTFAR ENOUGH, BUT THE BASIC NOTIONIS SOMEONE OUGHT TO BE ABLE,WHILE THIS ONGOING PROCESS-- ITIS NOT LIKE AN ELECTION.IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS OFGATHERING SIGNATURES THAT GOESON FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OFTIME, THAT A PERSON'S CHOICEWOULD NECESSARILY BE IRREVOCABLEAND THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOTRECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT WANTTO CHANGE THEIR MINDS.IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO ACTUALLYUNDERMINE THE CONSTITUTION'SRECOGNITION THAT THIS IS THEPEOPLE'S RIGHT AND IF THELEGISLATURE WANTS TO RECOGNIZETHAT, THEY CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDABOUT IT.WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO DOIT?>> JUSTICE KENNEDY, WITH ALL DUERESPECT, IF THE LEGISLATUREWANTS TO ENACT SOMETHING THEYCAN ENACT A JOINT RESOLUTION TOPLACE THE MATTER ON THE BALLOTTO AMEND ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3TO PROVIDE FOR RIGHT OFREVOCATION.THE PLAIN MEANING OF THATCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION TALKSABOUT THE SIGNATURES AND ITDOESN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUTREVOCATION SO IT MAY BE INVOKED



BY FILING THE CUSTODIAL STATERECORD, A PETITION CONTAININGTHE COPY OF THE PROPOSEDREVISION AMENDMENT SIGNED BY ANUMBER OF ELECTORS.IT DOES NOT SAY SIGNED BY ANUMBER OF ELECTORS LESS THAN THENUMBER OF ELECTORS WHO HAVEREVOKED IT.>> I THINK-- LET'S GO OVER--THINK WE HAVE SO MANY CONCEDINGCONSIDERATIONS.I THINK IN TERMS OF THIS, I SEETHE PROBLEM OF THE PERSON THATIS CHANGING THEIR MIND, AND THENTHEY CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND AGAINIS A LOT BROADER THAN MAYBENECESSARY.ON THE OTHER HAND, THE HISTORYOF THE SENATE BILL, THEY SAY,DURING THE 2004 ELECTION PROCESSCONCERNING FRAUD IN THE PETITIONPROCESS.NOW YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THISWAS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUTWHETHER FRAUD ACTUALLY EXISTED,BUT WHAT I WOULD AGAIN LIKE TOUNDERSTAND IS SOMETHING NOWBEING TAILORED TO DEAL WITH THESITUATION THAT MAY NOT BE ANYVALIDATION PROCESS, WHERESOMEBODY WAS-- SOMETHINGFRAUDULENT OR SOMETHING WASMISREPRESENTED-- AND I MIGHT SAYTHAT IT SHOULD ALSO BE AN AREVOCATION.IT-- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WAS AFRAUDULENT, OBTAINED REVOCATIONSIGNATURE, SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAYABOUT SOMETHING, AS THINGS HEATUP, YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL PEOPLETHAT ARE PAINTING THESEPOSITIONS AND I DON'T KNOW WHATKIND OF-- WHAT THEY ARE SAYINGIN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEM BUT WHYCOULDN'T SOMETHING NARROWLY BETAILORED THAT DOES DEAL WITH AREAL PROBLEM THAT THELEGISLATURE SEES, AND MISUSED INTHE PETITION PROCESS?THAT THIS MAY BE TOO BROAD BUTYOU SEEM TO SAY NO, NOTHINGCOULD BE ENACTED AND THAT ISWHERE I'M HAVING A LITTLE



TROUBLE.NOTHING CAN BE ENACTED, BEINGWAY BEYOND WHAT SEEMS NECESSARYFOR MAIL BALLOT INTEGRITY.>> LET ME CORRECT MYSELF ON ACOUPLE OF POINTS.FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS THEFLORIDIANS FOR A LEVEL PLAYINGFIELD VERSUS GUARDIANS WITHEXPANDED GAMBLING AND THERE WEREALLEGATIONS THAT, YOU KNOW,PEOPLE'S NAMES ON A PETITION SOTHE CIRCUIT COURT SUIT FILED--THE CIRCUIT COURT SAID THEELECTION APPEARED TO BE-- THEDISTRICT COURT REVERSED THAT BUTCAME UP HERE AND THIS COURTDISCHARGED JURISDICTION SO NOWIS BACK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT RECORDWITH RESPECT TO WHETHER FRAUDWAS EVER PROVEN.THERE WERE JUST MERE ALLEGATIONSAND SO APPARENTLY-->> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ISONGOING, RIGHT?>> YES YOUR HONOR.THAT IS A CIRCUIT COURT ONGOINGTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, SOAPPARENTLY THERE IS SOME REMEDY,EVEN AFTER MEASURES VOTED ON, TODEAL WITH FRAUD, MOREOVER TOPROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TOTHE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICEWITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATION OFFRAUDULENT SIGNATURES.>> I MEAN, SO YOU WOULD AGREETHEY CAN ACTUALLY TASK SOMETHINGTHAT WAS SHOWN TO BE NECESSARYTO ENSURE VALID INTEGRITY THATWOULD PUT MORE-- ON THEVALIDATION PROCESS?IN OTHER WORDS SOMETHING THATWOULD ACTUALLY PERHAPS BE AMAILOUT, TO SAY SIGN THIS, YOUKNOW-->> PUT YOUR FINGERPRINTS ON THEPETITION OR THEY COULD TAKE YOURPICTURE.THERE IS ALL KINDS OF STUFF, ANDTHAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURTIN CLASS SIZE AND IN THEPROPOSITION FOR TAX RELIEF.THERE IS NO QUESTION THE



LEGISLATURE CAN ESTABLISHREASONABLE REGULATIONS.THIS LEGISLATIVE SCHEME THAT ISUNDER ATTACK HAS NOTHING TO DOWITH BALLOT INTEGRITY.MOREOVER, THERE IS NOLEGISLATIVE HISTORY OFFEREDBEFORE THIS COURT --.>> IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BROAD,BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITHBALLOT INTEGRITY BECAUSE IF ISIGN IT, BECAUSE THAT WAS REALLYNOT MY SIGNATURE, THAT CERTAINLYGOES TO, IN MY MIND, BALLOTINTEGRITY.I THOUGHT YOUR ARGUMENT REALLYWAS THIS STATUTE GOES TOO FAR.BUT ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THATTHE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORITYTO DO ANYTHING ABOUT REVOCATIONOF A SIGNATURE?>> I AM SAYING THAT THECONSTITUTION'S PLAIN MEANINGDOES NOT ALLOW FOR A SIGNATUREREVOCATION PROCESS.IF THE LEGISLATURE BELIEVESTHAT, AS A NECESSARY PART OFINSURING BALLOT INTEGRITY, CANPUT THE MEASURE BEFORE THEVOTERS SO THAT THEY CAN AMENDTHEIR OWN-->> AREN'T WE DEALING WITHSEMANTICS, BECAUSE AGAIN IF WEHAVE THIS HYPOTHETICAL-- AND IREMEMBER THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELDCASE, THAT INSTEAD OF IT BEINGCALLED REVOCATION IT ISADDITIONAL STEPS FOR VALIDATION.IN OTHER WORDS, TO ME, IF THEREIS WIDESPREAD FRAUD IN THEPETITION-GATHERING PROCESSRATHER THAN SETTING UP ACOMPETING POLITICAL ACTIONCOMMITTEE THAT COULD, AS YOUSAY, BE DOING THE SAME THINGS ORWORSE, THAN THE ORIGINALPETITIONERS, THE BETTER THINGWOULD BE TO SAY LET'S MAKE SUREWE TAKE SOME CAREFUL STEPS TOVALIDATE AND MAYBE SOME OF THEMMIGHT BE MORE ONEROUS AND MAYBESOMEBODY WON'T SIGN IT.LIKE YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOURPICTURE ID AT THE POINT YOU SIGN



IT AND PUT YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSEON IT, AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEPETITIONER A COPY OF THE ACTUALAMENDMENT SO THEY HAVE IT WITHTHEM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY COMEOUT AND HAVE A CHANCE TO READIT.I CAN SEE YOU AGREE SOME OFTHOSE MIGHT IN FACT BE MOREAPPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS WHATMIGHT BE PROBLEMS NOW AND COULDBE DONE IN THE NAME OF THEVALIDATION PROCESS WHEN IT COMESTO THE REVOCATION PROCESS.>> YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THEHEAD JUSTICE PARIENTE.THE VERIFICATION PROCESS IS FAIRGAME AND SURE THE LEGISLATURECAN BEEF THAT UP.THE REVOCATION PROCESS IS AHORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.AGAIN, LET'S THINK ABOUT ITLOGICALLY.>> THE REVOCATION THAT THESIGNATURES HAVE TO BE VERIFIEDIN THE CONSTITUTION.>> THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNATUREVERIFICATION IS NOT EXPRESSLYPROVIDED FOR IN THECONSTITUTION.THAT IS CORRECT.>> SO, EVIDENTLY NAME OFVERIFICATION IS WITHOUTCONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, SO WHYIS THE REVOCATION DIFFERENT FROMTHE VERIFICATION?>> I WILL EXPLAIN THAT.AGAIN, ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3SAYS IT IS SIGNED BY A NUMBER OFELECTORS, SIGNED BY-- WELLVERIFICATION GOES TO WHETHER ORNOT THAT PERSON SIGNED IT, OKAY?SO THAT IS FINE, THE REVOCATIONPROCESS, WHAT IT DOES IS ITREQUIRES IN THE STATE'S BRIEF,IT REQUIRES THE SPONSOR TOOBTAIN MORE SIGNATURES, THENMORE MONEY, COLLECT MORESIGNATURES TO ACCOUNT FORPOTENTIAL REVOCATION.THAT IS ADMITTED BY THE STATESSO THEY HAVE IN FACT BURDENEDTHE CITIZENS WHO FAVOR THELEGISLATURE.



>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE, HOWDOES THE SUPERVISOR OFELECTIONS-- WHAT IF A PERSONREVOKES A DIFFERENT COUNTY WHENTHEY SIGNED IT?HOW DO THEY ACTUALLY SEE WHATTHE REVOCATION-- DO YOU KNOW HOWTHEY DO THAT?IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS PRETTYBURDENSOME ON THE SUPERVISOR OFTHE ELECTION.>> IT DOES, IN FACT THEREVOCATION PROCESS ALLOWS THESPONSOR OF THE REVOCATION TOSTOCKPILE THE REVOCATIONDIVISION AND THEN SPRING THEM ONTHE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS ONTHE DAY, YOU KNOW, BEFOREFEBRUARY 1ST.>> SO IT DOES ALLOW YOU THEN TOKNOW?>> NO, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.>> OKAY, THAT PICTURE ISIMPORTANT TO ME.>> IT IS RIGHT IN-- LESLIEBLACKNER, RIGHT IN THE RECORD.THERE IS NOTHING BY WAY OFDISCOVERY AFFIDAVIT OR ANYTHINGELSE THAT CONTRADICTS WHATLESLIE BLACKNER'S AFFIDAVITSAID, AND SHE CLEARLY STATES,AND I WILL PROVIDE YOU-- BEARWITH ME.115, PARAGRAPH 17, THEAUGUST 1ST IMPLEMENTATION OF THEREVOCATION STATUTE OF RULES ISDRAMATICALLY-- BECAUSE OF THEREVOCATION, FHD CANNOT MAIL ITUNTIL JANUARY 31, 2007, WHETHERWE HAVE COMMITTED A SUFFICIENTNUMBER OF PETITIONS, CANNOT KNOWWHETHER THE DISTRICT IN WHICH WEWERE ORIGINALLY QUALIFIED STILLREMAINS AND, INDEED, CANNOTDEPEND ON ANY OF THE PETITIONACCOUNTS PROVIDED SINCE WE HAVENO WAY OF KNOWING WHEN AND HOWMANY REVOCATION FORMS WILL BESUBMITTED.>> FEBRUARY IS IMPORTANT-- ANDGO ON THE BALLOT.>> FEBRUARY 1ST IS THE NEWDEADLINE ESTABLISHED BY THE 2004AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLE XI,



SECTION 3.I HAVE 21 SECONDS.>> YOU ARE OVER ABOUT 21SECONDS.>> MAY I HAVE ONE-- I JUST BEG,I BEG THE COURT TO EXPEDITIOUSLYDECIDE THIS CASE ONE WAY ORANOTHER SO WE CAN GET ON WITHTHE BUSINESS OF QUALIFYING FORTHE BALLOT.>> I KNOW THIS IS IMPORTANT.WHY IS IT THAT YOUR PARTICULARORGANIZATION IS PREJUDICED ABOUTWHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW?YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO EXPLAINTHAT.>> WE WERE THE ONLY INITIATIVEPETITION TARGETED FOR AREVOCATION CAMPAIGN AND THATSTILL IS THE CASE.NOW, MR. MAKAR DOES ACTIVELYPOINT OUT THAT IN 2008 THELEGISLATURE AMENDED THE LAW TOALLOW AN ELECTOR TO GO TO THESUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICEAND REVOKE HIS OR HER SIGNATUREBY PAYING A DIME AND USING AFORM.[INAUDIBLE]>> THAT IS CORRECT.IT IS A ONE-WAY STREET, WHICHAGAIN SHOWS HOW UNREASONABLE ANDOPPRESSIVE WHAT THE LEGISLATUREIS.>> MR. MAKAR, I BELIEVE YOU HAVEA COUPLE OF MINUTES LEFT.>> IF I COULD MAKE A FEW POINTS.FIRST OF ALL, AS THE LAW IS NOW,ANY ORGANIZATION, ANYONE COULD--[INAUDIBLE]IT SHOULD NOT BE DIMINISHED.>> ISN'T THIS, I MEAN THE WHOLEIDEA, MAYBE STATUTE THAT REALLYTALKS ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL'SRIGHT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT ALLOF THESE PACKS AND ALL OF THIS,IT JUST SEEMS TO ME WHEN YOUHAVE THAT KIND OF SITUATION, ALLYOU ARE REALLY DOING ISCONFUSING THE WHOLE PROCESS ASOPPOSED TO DEALING WITH THEINTEGRITY OF THE BALLOT.>> GOING TO THAT ISSUE,CERTAINLY LEGISLATORS DID NOT



BURDEN ANY RIGHT.[INAUDIBLE]>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIRRIGHTS OF RESPONSES.I AM TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE,THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE PROCESS.IT SEEMS TO ME WE ARECOMPLICATING THAT PROCESS BYTHESE PACTS THAT GO OUT, AND ONEWANTS TO REVOKE SIGNATURES, ONEWANTS TO GET MORE SIGNATURES ANDIT SEEMS TO ME WE END UP IN APLACE WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHATIS GOING ON AND HOW ANYTHING ISGOING TO HAVE TO GET ON THEBALLOT.>> WITH DUE RESPECT, IT IS NOTTHAT COMPLICATED AND THERE ARETWO PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN THINKOF.THIS COURT, THE PRINCIPLE OFTHIS COURT, IS NUMBER ONE, THEPOWER OF THE GOVERNMENT.HAS THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENTBEEN INCREASED?HAS IT WEAKENED THE POWER OF THEPEOPLE?NO, IT HAS ENHANCED THE POWER OFTHE PEOPLE.>> BUT IT HAS WEAKENED IT IN THESENSE THEY MAY CHANGE THEIRMINDS AGAIN, AND THERE ISNOTHING ELSE THEY CAN DO.>> BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE-- THEYONLY HAVE ONE SHOT AT IT.>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THATARGUMENT AT ALL MR. MAKAR.THEY ONLY HAVE ONE SHOT AT IT?I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN REFUSE TOSIGN IT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTANDYOUR CONCEPT THAT WE WANT THESEVOTERS TO BE ABLE TO KNOW, ANDIF THEY HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED THEYCAN GET THEIR NAME OFF OF THERE.BUT YOU HAVE PROHIBITED THEMFROM EVER SIGNING ANYTHING.>> THAT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF THEREVOCATION.THAT IS THE WAY THE LAW IS ANDTHAT IS THE WAY IT IS, ONE TIME,YOU GET ONE SHOT AT IT.>> IF YOU HAVE ONE SHOT, YOURREVOCATION IS ANOTHER SHOT.I'M REALLY MISSING THIS ONE-SHOT



THING.>> AS I SAID IN OTHER STATES-->> MAYBE THAT IS WHY IT ISUNCONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE IT ISA SECOND SHOT OF SOMETHING YOUALREADY SIGNED.IT IS ONE THING IF YOU WERESIMPLY DEFRAUDED AND IT ISSOMETHING ELSE IF YOU SAID, ICHANGE MY MIND.WE COULD ARGUE THIS PROBABLY FORA LONG TIME.>> IF I COULD MAKE THIS ONE LASTPOINT.>> ONE LAST POINT.>> THE CASE YOU FRAMED IS ONE INWHICH THE LEGISLATURE ISRESPECTING THE RIGHT OF THEPEOPLE-- THE CONSUMERPROTECTION, WHICH EMPOWERS THEPEOPLE AND PUT IN THAT MODE OFTHOUGHT,.[INAUDIBLE]>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOURARGUMENTS.THE COURT WILL NOW BE IN RECESSFOR TEN MINUTES.>> PLEASE RISE.THE SUPREME COURT IS NOW INRECESS.

kurt s. browning v. florida hometown democracy · kurt s. browning v. florida hometown democracy...

Documents