MJP –
As the election draws near, the Florida Supreme Court has instructed the state to reply by the week’s end to a submission by supporters seeking to invalidate the most recent financial report for a November referendum on abortion.
On Monday, it was decided to accelerate the case.
Attorneys representing Kathleen Passidomo, the President of the Florida Senate, Paul Renner, the Speaker of the House, the Florida Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), and individuals Amy Baker, Azhar Khan, Chris Spencer (Executive Director of the State Board of Administration), and Rachel Greszler (a senior research fellow at Heritage’s Roe Institute) must submit their responses by 5 p.m. on Friday.
Floridians Protecting Freedom, the organization that submitted a legal document called a “petition for quo warranto,” will then be given until 9 a.m. on August 7, the next Wednesday, to respond.
A quick change is expected to propel supporters and opponents of abortion, such as Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans, to the final stage of their battle regarding the fiscal impact statement of Amendment 4.
Requiring a minimum of 60% of votes for approval, the proposal aims to permit abortions until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, typically around the 24th week of gestation.
The statement of financial impact, to be included on the ballots, has the potential to influence voters in their decision to either approve or reject the Heartbeat Protection Act, a law prohibiting abortion after six weeks.
On Thursday, Floridians Protecting Freedom, the organization advocating for the amendment to abortion rights, submitted a petition for a writ of quo warranto, asking the state to clarify the basis for their alteration of the financial assessment statement.
SEE MORE –
Former CNN Anchor and Retired Professor Vie for Democratic Nomination in Crucial NY District
As mentioned before, the group contends that the state exceeded its authority by convening the FIEC in July without a court mandate.
The initial declaration from the committee, which was concluded last year, stated that the financial consequences of the amendment were considered “uncertain.” After the six-week abortion ban was confirmed, supporters of abortion rights contended and successfully argued in court that implementing stricter abortion regulations would result in higher costs for the state. Consequently, they insisted on the necessity of revising the measure.
In a surprising decision, Renner and Passidomo, who are both members of the Republican party, opted to convene the economic assessment committee once again during the ongoing appeal process.
In July, the FIEC held three meetings where they reached a consensus to revise the statement. The new version contained wording that supporters of abortion rights considered to be “highly controversial.”
The case was later thrown out by a three-judge panel from the 1st District Court of Appeal. The statement expressed a decision not to utilize their authority to address a question that is no longer relevant.
According to Floridians Protecting Freedom, the conference can only modify a Financial Impact Statement under one circumstance: if a court of original jurisdiction mandates it. In the Florida Statutes, one searches in vain for any wording that allows the State to do what was done in this case.
