CASE NO.: 1D18-3644
L.T. No.: 2018-CA-001525
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
CERTIFICATION OF APPEAL AS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RESOLUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
The parties in these appeals from a final judgment in a ballot summary challenge jointly request that we certify the matter pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, which provides that the Florida Supreme Court "[m]ay review any order or judgment of a trial court certified by the district court of appeal in which an appeal is pending to be of great public importance, or to have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state, and certified to require immediate resolution by the supreme court."
Our responsibility in this circumstance is to determine whether an appealable order has been issued, whether the issues presented in the appeal are of great public importance or are likely to have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state and whether "circumstances exist which require that the supreme court immediately resolve the issues, rather than permitting the normal appellate process to run its course."
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Fla., Inc. v. Hood, 881 So. 2d 664, 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Harris v. Coal. to Reduce Class Size, 824 So. 2d 245, 246-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). On the Court's own motion, we consolidate these appeals for purposes of disposition. We conclude that certification is proper because (a) a final, appealable order was entered in these cases; (b) the issues presented are of great public importance, arising from a proposal of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission to amend the state constitution; and (c) a need for immediate resolution exists due to time constraints related to the pending election and ballot preparation timelines. As such, we certify that the issues pending in these cases are of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by the Supreme Court of Florida, noting that we stand ready to assist on an emergency basis should the matter be remanded back to us for our consideration. See Sancho v. Smith, 830 So. 2d 856, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (deciding ballot summary issue in constitutional amendment case on the merits, noting that "the supreme court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to review the order under the pass through provision. The appeal is now back before this court for a decision on the merits."). RAY, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is (a true copy of) the original court order. Served: Hon. Pamela Jo Bondi, AG
David A. Fugett, GC
Jesse C. Dyer, AGC
Hon. Karen Gievers, Judge
Hon. John Tomasino, Clerk Barry Richard
Karen A. Brodeen, AAG
S. Denay Brown
Edward M Wenger
Hon. Gwen Marshall, Clerk ds /s/_________
KRISHNA SAMUELS, CLERK