Within days of a momentous Florida Supreme Court ruling authorizing a referendum to restore abortion rights, the group pushing the initiative rushed to file a lawsuit to ensure that the ballot language describing its financial implications doesn’t mislead voters.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, sponsor of the proposed Amendment 4, claims the financial impact statement now planned “is fatally flawed.”

“First, it largely presents outdated information about the legality of abortion under statutes and litigation unrelated to Amendment 4; second, the inclusion of such information renders it confusing, ambiguous, and misleading; and third, it highlights the potential of future litigation, which is speculative,” the organization said in a 17-page civil complaint filed Friday in Leon County Circuit Court, in Tallahassee.

“Because the [financial estimate] is unclear, confusing, ambiguous, misleading, and inaccurate, voters will be prevented from casting an informed ballot,” the document adds.

In a written statement to the Phoenix, the campaign appeared to play down the significance of the lawsuit, saying the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), which drafted the impact statement last November, needs a court order to revise it.

“This is a technical issue, and we look forward to working with the FIEC to resolve it, so voters have accurate information when it comes time to vote on Amendment 4,” the organization said in its statement.

Still, unless the amendment passes (with the constitutionally required 60% of the votes cast), Florida will continue to enforce a draconian ban on abortions conducted after six weeks’ gestation, before many people realize they are pregnant. The ban is set to take effect on May 1.

This appears to be the first time such a situation has arisen, the campaign continued. That’s because on April 1, the same day the court OK’d the initiative for the ballot, it also reversed its own 1989 precedent that the Florida Constitution’s Privacy Clause protects access to abortion. That ruling triggered the countdown to the six-week ban.

Of course, there was no way nearly five months ago for the FIEC to anticipate that ruling, especially in light of the then-pending challenge to the state’s abortion limits, so its members hedged their bets, concluding: “Because there are several possible outcomes related to this litigation that differ widely in their effects, the impact of the proposed amendment on state and local government revenues and costs, if any, cannot be determined.”

The abortion ban ruling, then, “has rendered the current financial impact language outdated and no longer accurate. To our knowledge, this is the first time it has happened that a court ruling following the determination of a financial impact has rendered the financial impact statement inaccurate,” Floridians Protecting Freedom told the Phoenix.

Economic experts

The conference is a collection of economic experts that regularly advises state government. The suit names the panel plus its four members — Amy Baker, director of the state Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Vince Aldridge, staff director for the House Ways and Means Committee; Azhar Khan, staff director of the Senate Finance and Tax Committee; and Brea Gelin, a chief analyst in the Executive Office of the Governor — plus Secretary of State Cord Byrd.

“Under current statutes, the FIEC may not be able to reconsider the financial impact statement without a court order, so Floridians Protecting Freedom is filing a lawsuit, simply to compel the state to ensure the financial impact statement accompanying the ballot summary of Amendment 4 is accurate. This is a technical issue, and we look forward to working with the FIEC to resolve it, so voters have accurate information when it comes time to vote on Amendment 4,” the campaign told the Phoenix.

As with all proposed constitutional amendments, the financial estimate will appear on the ballot along with a summary of what any amendments would do. The idea is to give voters the best possible assessment of how an initiative would affect taxpayers.

That existing language won’t do, the new lawsuit complains:

“First, it largely presents outdated information about the legality of abortion under statutes and litigation unrelated to Amendment 4; second, the inclusion of such information renders it confusing, ambiguous, and misleading; and third, it highlights the potential of future litigation, which is speculative.”

Fresh language

The text of the proposed “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion” says: “Limiting government interference with abortion. — Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, 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.”

Now that the state Supreme Court has settled the ambiguities the group wrestled with, the financial statement needs rewriting, the complaint says.

“The 6-week ban will be in effect at the time of the election, so to accurately reflect Amendment 4’s probable financial impact, the [impact statement] must reflect that reality,” it notes.

It suggests fresh language:

“The Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference estimated that this proposed amendment will result in decreased costs to state government, no impact to local government revenues or costs, and an overall positive impact to the state budget.”

Floridians Protecting Freedom asked for a quick ruling.

“Time is of the essence, and this matter should be expedited because the ballots for the 2024 General Election will be mailed to voters starting as early as September 21, 2024. … The ballot’s design must necessarily be finalized, and the ballots themselves printed, before then,” the complaint argues.

According to conference’s analysis, the state recorded 46,011 abortions up to six weeks’ gestation during 2022, or 55.7% of the total of 82,851 that year. There were 81,269 conducted up to 15 weeks’ gestation.

For that reason, the document forecasts broader savings for state and local governments if the amendment passes while the six-week ban remains law, because there would be fewer children going to school, participating in social services, or otherwise drawing tax money. But it gives no hard numbers.

“The FIEC has already developed the financial impact analysis for a scenario that the 6-week ban is in place — Florida’s current reality — so they do not need to revisit their analysis. However, their summary of that impact, which all voters will see, is now inaccurate and needs to be updated to reflect the current reality,” the organization told the Phoenix.