Floridians Protecting Freedom legally challenged Florida’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference and state leaders, claiming the revised financial impact statement for Amendment 4, which limits government interference with abortion, was unlawfully adopted without required judicial oversight.

A legal challenge was filed this week against Florida’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference, House Speaker Paul Renner, and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo over the recent revision of the financial impact statement for Amendment 4, a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at limiting government interference with abortion.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. (FPF) and its chair, Sara Latshaw, argue in the filing that the revised statement was adopted unlawfully, bypassing judicial oversight and violating statutory requirements.

Amendment 4, set to appear on the November ballot, seeks to protect against governmental restrictions on abortion. The challenge is predicated on the financial impact statement meant to inform voters about the potential economic effects of the amendment.

Initially, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference drafted a statement suggesting the financial impact of Amendment 4 could not be determined due to ongoing legal uncertainties about Florida’s abortion laws. A Leon County Circuit Court invalidated this statement, citing violations of constitutional and statutory requirements for clarity and accuracy. The court ordered the conference to redraft the statement within 15 days and retained jurisdiction to review the revised version.

Despite the court’s order and a pending appeal, the state reconvened the Financial Impact Estimating Conference and issued a new financial impact statement on July 15. The revised statement includes speculative impacts and non-financial considerations, which the petitioners claim violate the court’s directive and established legal precedents. The state’s actions led the First District Court of Appeal to dismiss the case as moot, asserting that the new statement rendered the original issue irrelevant.

“[A]bsent this Court’s intervention, the State intends to place a Financial Impact Statement on the ballot that is plainly misleading,” the document states.

In their petition to the Supreme Court of Florida, FPF and Latshaw contend that the state’s actions represent an unlawful exercise of power. They argue that neither the Florida Constitution nor the Florida Statutes authorize revising the financial impact statement outside the judicial process. They also claim that the statutory scheme established by the Legislature requires judicial involvement in the revision process to ensure that financial impact statements are not manipulated for political purposes.

“At the meetings, the Conference speculated broadly about the nonbudgetary effects of Amendment 4 and ultimately included items in its revised Statement that, as the Conference’s longest serving member put it, have “nothing to do” with financial impact,” the filing reads. “The result is that, absent this Court’s intervention, the State intends to place a Financial Impact Statement on the ballot that is plainly misleading.”

The petitioners also request urgency of judicial intervention, noting the upcoming election deadlines and the potential for the state’s approach to set a “dangerous” precedent.