In my post reviewing the top church-state stories of the year, the section discussing stories I would be especially looking for in 2012 included a challenge to the state's proposed constitutional amendment, headed to voters, which would undo decades of religious liberty protections by removing the no-aid-to-religion provision. As it happens, we didn't need to wait until next year to get the first answer to this question. Today a judge agreed with one of the arguments of plaintiffs challenging the measure and ordered the summary voters will see to be rewritten.
While the summary assures voters the move will make the religious freedom provisions of the state constitution "consistent with" those of the US Constitution, that is, the judge agreed, not exactly true.
One might reasonably infer from the "consistent with" language that the proposed amendment will bring the Florida Constitution in line with the U.S. Constitution, that it will provide the same benefits and prescriptions. But…that is not the case. At best the "consistent with" language is ambiguous. And whether affirmatively misleading or merely ambiguous as to the meaning and effect of the Amendment, it is in either event defective.
The judge rejected other arguments against the referendum including that the title was similarly misleading.
