In the second single subject ruling today (there may be more that I am not aware of), the Florida Supreme Court has barred an important redistricting initiative from appearing on the ballot. The Court held the measure violated the single subject rule because it would have both (1) created a non-partisan redistricting commission and (2) changed the method for choosing state legislators to single member districts. Here is a snippet from the Court opinion:

The sponsor asserts that the Independent Commission Initiative does not constitute logrolling because it creates a fifteen-member independent commission to replace the Legislature in the process of apportioning legislative and congressional districts in the year following each decennial census. The sponsor contends that all of the provisions of the proposed amendment are directly related to that single subject in that the provisions explain the composition of the redistricting commission, the requirements for serving as a commissioner, and the judicial mechanism for reviewing reapportionment plans. The opponents contend that the proposed amendment engages in logrolling because it (1) creates the new redistricting commission while also establishing new standards for districts by requiring them to be single-member districts and to be of convenient contiguous territory; (2) it alters the way state legislative and congressional districts are created; and (3) it adds a new qualification for legislators by requiring commission members to take an oath that they will not seek office as a state legislator or member of Congress for four years after serving on the redistricting commission. We agree with the opponents that the proposed amendment does indeed encompass two separate subjects. Not only would the proposed amendment create a new redistricting commission, but it would also change the standards applicable to the districts that are created by the commission. Paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment would require the commission to divide the state into “single-member . . . districts of convenient contiguous territory.” The current constitutional provision provides that the districts may be “of either contiguous, overlapping, or identical territory.” Art. III, § 16(a), Fla. Const. This “identical territory” provision permits the creation of multi-member districts. See In re Apportionment Law Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 1972 Regular Session, 263 So. 2d 797, 806-07 (Fla. 1972) (rejecting challenges to multi-member districts in the legislative apportionment plan and citing the proceedings of the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission in 1966 which defeated a proposed amendment to change this language in article III, section 16 and thereby require single-member districts).
The other provisions of the proposed amendment exhibit “a natural relation and connection as component parts or aspects of” the new method proposed for apportionment. These provisions explain the composition of the commission, specify the apportionment process, and provide for judicial apportionment if the commission fails to complete its duty. However, the creation of new standards to be used in apportioning the districts is not a component part of this apportionment plan and results in logrolling. A voter who advocates apportionment by a redistricting commission may not necessarily agree with the change in the standards for drawing the legislative and congressional districts. Conversely, a voter who approves the change in district standards may not want to change from the legislative apportionment process currently in place. Thus, a voter would be forced to vote in the “all or nothing” fashion that the single subject requirement safeguards against. Thus, we conclude that the proposed amendment does not comply with this constitutional requirement.

Interestingly, three Justices concurred and would have gone even further, endorsing the view that “that joining congressional districting and legislative districting in the same initiative does not meet the single-subject requirement.”
Common Cause has called this a “politically motivated decision.” Thanks again to Dan Smith for the pointer.