ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-LIMITED POLITICAL TERMS IN CERTAIN ELECTIVE OFFICES, 592 So. 2d 225

GRIMES, Justice. The Attorney General has petitioned the Court for an advisory opinion on the validity of an initiative petition providing for limited political terms for certain elective offices. In response to the Attorney General’s request, we issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs and heard oral argument on the validity of the proposed amendment.

The initiative petition provides as follows: The people of Florida believe that politicians who remain in office too long may become preoccupied with re-election and become beholden to special interests and bureaucrats, and that present limitations on the President of the United States and Governor of Florida show that term limitations can increase voter participation, citizen involvement in government, and the number of persons who will run for elective office.

Therefore, to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, the people of Florida, exercising their reserved powers, hereby declare that: 1)

Article VI, s. 4 of the Constitution of the State of Florida is hereby amended by

a) inserting “(a)” before the first word thereof and,

b) adding a new subsection “(b)” at the end thereof to read: “(

b) No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to any of the following offices: “

(1) Florida representative, “

(2) Florida senator, “

(3) Florida Lieutenant governor, “(4) any office of the Florida cabinet, “

(5) U.S. Representative from Florida, or “

(6) U.S.

Senator from Florida “if by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years.” 2) This amendment shall take effect on the date it is approved by the electorate, but no service in a term of office which commenced prior to the effective date of this amendment will be counted against the limit in the prior sentence. 3) If any portion of this measure is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this measure, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application.

The people of Florida declare their intention that persons elected to offices of public trust will continue voluntarily to observe the wishes of the people as stated in this initiative in the event any provision of this initiative is held invalid. The Attorney General has concluded that the proposed amendment meets the single-subject requirement of

article XI,

section 3, Florida Constitution, and the ballot title and

summary requirements of

section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1989). In addition to those issues, opponents of the proposed amendment have raised various constitutional challenges. However, based on the following provisions, we find that those issues are not justiciable in the instant proceeding. The Florida Constitution provides that “[t]he attorney general shall, as directed by general law,” request this Court’s opinion “as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to

Section 8 of

Article XI.” Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const. General law provides that the attorney general shall seek an advisory opinion “regarding the compliance of the text of the proposed amendment or revision with s. 3, Art. XI of the State Constitution and the compliance of the proposed ballot title and substance with s. 101.161.” § 16.-061(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). Thus, we are limited in this proceeding to addressing whether the proposed amendment and ballot title and

summary comply with

article XI,

section 3, Florida Constitution and

section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1989). See Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d 303, 306 (Fla. 1982) (question of whether proposed amendment violated due process not justiciable in challenge to ballot

summary). SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT

Article XI,

section 3, Florida Constitution, provides, in relevant part that: The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith. (Emphasis added.) A proposed amendment meets this single-subject requirement if it has “a logical and natural oneness of purpose[.]” Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984).

To state the test another way, a proposed amendment is valid if it “may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or scheme.” Id. (quoting City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 154 Fla. 881, 883-84, 19 So.2d 318, 320 (1944)). The single-subject requirement imposes a “functional as opposed to a locational restraint on the range of authorized amendments.” Fine, 448 So.2d at 990. Its intent is to “protect against multiple precipitous changes in our state constitution.” Id. at 988.

We find that the proposed amendment meets the single-subject requirement. The sole subject of the proposed amendment is limiting the number of consecutive terms that certain elected public officers may serve. Although the proposed amendment affects officeholders in three different branches of government, that fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate the proposed amendment. We have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even though they affected multiple branches of government. For example, in Weber v.

Smathers, 338 So.2d 819 (Fla.1976), we upheld the proposed “Ethics in Government” amendment against a single-subject attack. That amendment required financial disclosure by all elected constitutional officers and candidates, provided for forfeiture of rights under the public retirement system for any public official who violated the public trust, and limited the ability of legislators and statewide elected officers to represent persons before the governmental bodies of which they were members.

We do not agree with opponents that the proposed amendment fails to identify constitutional provisions with which it conflicts or which it substantially affects. The initiative proposal is intended to amend

article VI,

section 4 of the state constitution, which provides that “[n]o person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability.” The amendment, if passed, will add term limits as a further disqualification on holding office. The proposed amendment does not change or affect the age or residency requirements of

article III,

section 15 (state legislators) or

article IV,

section 5 (lieutenant governor and cabinet members) of the Florida Constitution. Further, should the proposed amendment be approved by the voters, state senators will still be elected for four-year terms and state representatives for two-year terms as provided in

article III,

section 15. Cabinet members and the lieutenant governor will still serve four-year terms as provided in

article IV,

section 5. BALLOT TITLE AND

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part: Whenever a constitutional amendment ... is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot_ The substance of the amendment ... shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of. The proposed ballot title and

summary at issue here provide: LIMITED POLITICAL TERMS IN CERTAIN ELECTIVE OFFICES Limits terms by prohibiting incumbents who have held the same elective office for the preceding eight years from appearing on the ballot for re-election to that office. Offices covered are: Florida Representative and Senator, Lieutenant Governor, Florida Cabinet, and U.S. Senator and Representative. Terms of office beginning before amendment approval are not counted. We have construed

section 101.161 to require that “the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot.” Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 155 (Fla.1982) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hill v. Milander, 72 So.2d 796, 798 (Fla.1954)). The ballot title and

summary must state “in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure.” Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d at 155. However, it need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment. Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1986); Grose v. Firestone, 422 So.2d at 305; Miami Dolphins Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981, 987 (Fla.1981). The chief purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit the terms of incumbents in certain elective offices. The proposal seeks to achieve this, as the ballot

summary indicates, by prohibiting an incumbent who has held the office for the preceding eight years from appearing on the ballot for reelection. The language of the

summary and ballot title are clear and unambiguous. The

summary identifies the offices affected. Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that the ballot

summary is invalid because it does not advise voters that there are presently no limits on the terms of the affected offices and does not reveal that the proposed amendment contains a severability clause. A ballot

summary may be defective if it omits material facts necessary to make the

summary not misleading. See Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d at 158 (Ehrlich, J., concurring). However, we do not find the failure to indicate the current lack of term limits to be misleading. This is not a situation in which the ballot

summary conceals a conflict with an existing provision. There is no existing constitutional provision imposing a different limitation on terms of office. In effect, this proposed amendment writes on a clean slate. Furthermore, we do not find the lack of reference to the severability provision to be misleading. We have approved other ballot summaries that did not refer to severability provisions in the proposed amendments.

See In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General—Homestead Valuation Limitation, 581 So.2d 586 (Fla.1991); In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General, Limitation of Non-Economic Damages in Civil Actions, 520 So.2d 284 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed ballot

summary meet the requirements of

article XI,

section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and

section 101.-161, Florida Statutes (1989). This opinion should not be construed as favoring or opposing the passage of this proposed amendment. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J. and McDONALD, BARKETT and HARDING, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which KOGAN, J., concurs. KOGAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to

article IV,

section 10, Florida Constitution, and

section 16.-061, Florida Statutes (1989). . Opponents argue that the proposed amendment unconstitutionally restricts First Amendment rights and that the limitation on the terms of federal legislators violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. . . Although

section 16.061(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that the petition for an advisory opinion “may enumerate any specific factual issues which the Attorney General believes would require a judicial determination[ ]," the constitutional issues raised by the initiative's opponents are legal rather than factual issues.