EMILY LOPEZ—After the landmark Dobbs decision, abortion rights have become one of the nation’s most contentious legal battles, with states grappling over the scope of reproductive freedoms. In Florida, Richardson v. Sec’y, Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. has emerged as yet another lawsuit in this ongoing struggle, alleging that top state officials used public resources to sway public opinion on a proposed abortion amendment.
Under Florida’s current Heartbeat Protection Act, abortions are banned after six weeks, with limited exceptions. In November, however, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote on Amendment 4 to the state constitution. The amendment states, in part, that “[n]o law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The amendment has been at the forefront of campaign messaging in recent months, with various political groups pushing their agendas through social media and television advertising. Governor Ron DeSantis and other state leaders have opposed the ballot measure by arguing that the amendment’s language is overly vague, and that abortion law should be established by the legislature.
At issue in Richardson are numerous instances of state official conduct surrounding Amendment 4, including a website and a short video that Jason Weida, Secretary at the Agency for Health Care Administration (ACHA) put out through the ACHA. The Florida Cares website states “Don’t let the fearmongers lie to you” and defends current Florida law as “designed to protect women from dangerous and unsanitary conditions.” The website further states that Amendment 4 threatens women’s safety. Shortly after the creation of the website, Weida posted on X (formerly Twitter), urging Floridians to visit the website. The AHCA subsequently reposted Weida’s tweet. The AHCA also posted a link to a video advertisement on X, which directs users to the Florida Cares website. In the video, the narrator states “[n]o woman can go to jail for having an abortion. And abortions are available before a child’s heartbeat is detected, and in cases of rape or incest, and at all points in pregnancy to save the life and health of the mother. For accurate information about all your options, visit our website. Because Florida cares.” Governor Desantis has defended the website, stating that “it’s being used by the AHCA agency to basically provide people with accurate information.” Attorney General Ashley Moody also made public comments regarding Amendment 4 in an opinion piece, where she describes the ballot initiative as misleading.
Furthermore, Secretary Weida attended a press conference in Orlando, hosted by Physicians Against Amendment 4, where he made several inflammatory statements about the amendment in his official capacity:
Morning, I am Jason Weida, honored to serve the state of Florida as the Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. I’m particularly honored to be surrounded by some great clinicians. Now I approach this issue not as a clinician. I approach this issue as a regulator … And if I leave you with only one thing today, it is that I believe in transparency, and I believe that people should understand how health care works in their state, and what the laws regarding health care actually say. And sadly, you see a lot of misinformation out there on this and other issues, especially this issue. And as the agency then is tasked with enforcing Florida’s abortion laws, I wanted to set the record straight to make sure that when people are thinking about these issues, they’re thinking about them clearly in facts and not with misinformation and lies.
In response, Adam Richardson, a Florida citizen, petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for writs of quo warranto and mandamus, accusing the aforementioned parties of violating Section 104.31 of the Florida Statutes by actively opposing Amendment 4. Section 104.31 states that “[n]o officer or employee of the state …shall use his or her official or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or a nomination of office or coercing or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.” Furthermore, Richardson alleges that the public statements made by relevant state officials “aim to interfere with the people’s right to decide whether or not to approve a citizen-initiated proposal to amend their Constitution, free from undue government interference.” The respondents argued that Section 104.31 should not be privately enforced through a writ of quo warranto, but rather by a representative of the state, such as the attorney general. Respondents further argued that Richardson lacked standing to seek a quo warranto under current precedent, which has never allowed for a citizen or taxpayer to enforce a criminal statute.
The court unanimously rejected the petition on procedural grounds, ruling that taxpayers cannot move Florida courts to enforce criminal statutes against state officials for violations of election law. Writing for the majority, Justice John D. Couriel accepted the respondents’ argument in finding that “we have never held that the writ lies to compel the criminal prosecution of a state actor or to enable a private citizen to enforce a state criminal statute.” Justice Couriel further articulated that “[i]t is hard to see how [Richardson] asks us to do anything short of that, for the statute is express about what a violation of its requirements constitutes: ‘a misdemeanor of the first degree.’” Justice Jorge Labarga concurred with the result reached by the majority but did not join the opinion. Justices Meredith L. Sasso and Renatha Francis wrote a separate concurrence, concurring in the court’s decision but emphasizing the need to deal with the “runaway nature of our quo warranto precedent.”
In an already contentious and polarized election, Floridians can expect state officials and agencies to continue making inflammatory remarks on Amendment 4. Procedurally, the ruling in Richardson v. Sec’y, Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. demonstrates that private citizens will need to find a different manner to regulate state official’s conduct concerning constitutional amendments this election cycle. More importantly, however, this ruling raises broader, ethical questions about the blurred line between public policy advocacy and electoral interference that state officials walk.
