ry and unconstitutional. In a Sun-Sentinel news article, he is quoted as saying, "the ballot measures' language violates many requirements constitutional amendments must meet before being put before voters" (qtd. in Kennedy). He goes on to add, "you must be fair, you cannot deceive the public, and that's what [these initiatives] do" (qtd. in Kennedy). Butterworth's argument is only valid when discussing the precise language in ONE FLORIDA. The term "people" is used in its summary, whereas the term "persons" is used in the text of the document. "Persons" under Florida law can be considered to include corporations, while "people" may not (Kennedy). Butterworth considers this "to be another ambiguity that should bar the measures from the ballot" (qtd. in Kennedy). Butterworth and his supporters are trying to fight the ONE FLORIDA proposition not on the Constitutional rights of freedom and equality, but on constitutional technicalities. Sun-Sentinel writer, John Kennedy describes how "the Florida Constitution places strict requirements on ballot initiatives...the most rigorous is that a measure may encompass only one subject" (Kennedy). The fact that ONE FLORIDA touches on education employment, and contracting is enough to give affirmative action supporters the grounds they need to bring their case before the Florida Supreme Court. However, according to the above news article, 435,329 registered voters' signatures are needed to place amendments to the Constitution before voters...only 43,500 were collected (Kennedy). Anti-affirmative action advocates have already countered with the circulation of four petitions: the first initiative bans affirmative action in public employment, public education, and public contracting, and the other three target individual areas. Butterworth still contends that " each initiative still violates the single-subject rule" (qtd. in Kennedy). 9The question of ONE FLORIDA being constitutional or not should not be ...
