Florida court dismisses state's 'moot' appeal on abortion amendment's financial impact

Calling it "moot," a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the state's appeal challenging a 2023 circuit court's opinion on the state's abortion ballot question, known as Amendment 4.

The court tossed the appeal after the state's Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) made final new language for the state constitutional amendment on abortion access that will be before voters statewide this November.

The proposed amendment's financial impact statement includes the language: "There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time."

"We decline to exercise our jurisdiction to decide a moot question," the opinion said, adding that the appellees, Floridians Protecting Freedom, can raise new claims about the latest financial impact statement in a new case.

The appellants, the FIEC and the Secretary of State Cord Byrd can "again raise their arguments concerning the circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction in a case where there is an actual controversy presented," the opinion said.

"The order on review is based on a financial impact statement that is no longer operative. No judicial determination or action remains for the circuit court based on the complaint before it."

The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic & Demographic Research and the FIEC said the original financial impact statement on the ballot measure was "indeterminate," as analysts usually do not consider future litigation costs over an approved amendment.

But because this decision was made while Florida's six-week abortion ban was pending, lawyers argued and won in trial court that tighter abortion restrictions would cost the state more money, and therefore the financial impact statement needed revising.

Circuit Judge John C. Cooper, who sits in Tallahassee, found that the original financial impact statement was "inaccurate, ambiguous, misleading, unclear, and confusing."

Both House Speaker Paul Renner and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo decided to reconvene the financial impact panel after the six-week ban was upheld.

The state then brought in Chris Spencer, once DeSantis' budget chief and now head of the State Board of Administration, as well as a researcher from the Heritage Foundation, a well-known conservative think tank, and an academic from the Catholic University of America to sway the results.

The USA TODAY Network-Florida recently reported that the Executive Office of the Governor paid Michael New, an assistant professor of social research at CUA's Busch School of Business in Washington, D.C., $300 an hour to speak at the FIEC meetings.

And the Florida House of Representatives paid Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow with Heritage's Roe Institute, also based in Washington, $75 an hour to represent the House.

The latest financial impact statement has received criticism from abortion-rights activists, who say it's "politically charged language designed to undermine" the initiative.

"The current statement is a distorted narrative fueled by political agendas and a corrupted process," said the ACLU of Florida's Michelle Morton in a statement.

"It is rife with anti-abortion talking points and far-fetched scenarios designed to scare voters into maintaining the status quo of a near-total ban on abortion," she added.

Ana Goñi-Lessan, state watchdog reporter for the USA TODAY Network – Florida, can be reached at agonilessan@gannett.com.

This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Appeals court dismisses case over abortion amendment financial impact