As Election Day approaches, voters should be wary of constitutional amendments proposed by special interests. These initiatives receive only cursory scrutiny, contain confusing language, lack necessary definitions, lead to unnecessary litigation, and invariably have unexpected results. Voters should carefully review the proposed ballot language.

I have written extensively about the problems of both specific amendmentsand with the constitutional amendment process in general. This article focuses on the fundamental notion that our Florida Constitution is intended to provide the model for our government and to protect individual liberty, separation of powers, and limited government. The Constitution is not written to allow special interests to bypass bicameralism and presentation and smuggle their political interests into our founding document.

Our written Constitution provides for limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and law-making. The Constitution is a revered document that provides a blueprint for our government. Unfortunately, disgruntled special interests in the legislature attempted to turn the Florida Constitution into a seventh volume of Florida Statutes, regulating everyday matters better handled elsewhere. Such attempts weaken the separation of powers, jeopardize individual liberty, and put our Constitution up for auction for the benefit of special interests outside the state.

Legislators usually practice bicameralism and presentation. In other words, most systems in the United States involve a lower house, an upper house (usually called the Senate), and an executive veto (held by the governor or president). These three diverse bodies debate, negotiate and make compromises to enact law after vigorous compromises. I have seen this process work, and it invariably produces a superior result (and broader consensus) than any agency acting unilaterally. Even good legislation is usually introduced several times and gradually improved before it is finally adopted. Bad law is passed when this process is rushed, ignored or circumvented.

Special interests have used the ballot initiative process to bypass checks and balances and buy amendments to our Florida Constitution. First, these interest groups hire paid petition gatherers, who have little knowledge of political issues, to encourage passersby in courthouses and public events to sign petitions. These groups have recently ignored laws passed over the past decade to regulate petition collection. Once enough signatures are gathered, a cursory verification process is followed by a wave of misleading advertising, as we have seen over the past few months.

I need to be clear that this article is not an apologia for politics as usual in Tallahassee. I have often criticized the Legislative Assembly. I refused to serve there any longer, at least in part because of his infirmities. Parliament is not perfect. Sometimes it fails to implement necessary reforms. Other times it goes too far based on the real or perceived urgency of solving a serious problem. In fact, the question of whether the legislature has gone too far or not far enough is often a question of point of view. However, it is precisely because of inevitable errors and disagreements in policymaking that the legislature always reserves the right to further modify laws in the light of reason and experience.

Legislation by constitutional amendment essentially prevents Parliament from calibrating policy based on the experience, preferences or needs of the electorate, technological or demographic changes, or a myriad of other developments that cannot be predicted, and even less to list. A general rule for voters is that they should carefully consider the merits of amendments that primarily concern the structure of government while leaving policy issues, including the regulation of marijuana and abortion, to the Legislature.

Whether voters realize it or not, Amendment 4 would gut laws relating to ultrasounds, waiting times, health and safety rules. These laws were enacted over decades by the elected representatives of the people. Many of them would likely be approved by the electorate if voted on individually. Whether or not the electorate believes that Parliament has regulated perfectly – we almost all agree that it has not, for one reason or another – it should not constitutionalize another flawed regulation, in particular a regulation so far removed from several decades of legislation on the subject.

Voters may believe that the fact that amendments appear on the ballot means that they have somehow been “approved.” The fact that the Florida Supreme Court allowed the ballot amendment does not indicate that it is a reasonable policy for Florida. The Supreme Court does not rule on the wisdom of an amendment. Rather, the court reviews a modification to ensure that it complies with the technical requirements. In this case, the court limited its review to ensuring that the ballot summary was not misleading and that the amendment related to a single issue. (In my opinion, the court was wrong to approve the abortion amendment.)

Judge John Couriel, who allowed the amendment on the ballot, told opponents of the amendment: “(you) say, ‘It’s a wolf,’ and maybe it is a wolf.” . . But it seems our job is to determine if this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That’s all we can do. Similarly, Chief Justice Muniz said, in discussing the broad scope of the proposed amendment: “