Florida Department of State v. Mona Mangat — Pariente, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Pariente concurred in the result because Amendment 9 was lengthy and complex, while its ballot summary did not clearly and unambiguously explain the amendment's chief purpose and legal effect. She agreed that the Court should not substitute the full amendment for the misleading summary, but would not decide whether that substitution might be permissible in a future case involving a different ballot presentation. Chief Justice Canady, dissenting, would have required the full amendment to be placed on the ballot instead of the defective summary.