
    ADVISORY OPINION TO The ATTORNEY GENERAL RE REFERENDA REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans.
    No. SC06-521.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2007.
    Louis F. Hubener and Leah L. Marino, Solicitor General’s Office, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
    Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire, on behalf of Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, as Sponsor.
   PER CURIAM.

While this Court was considering the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, the Attorney General requested that we review the corresponding financial impact statement to evaluate its compliance with section 100.371 of the Florida Statutes. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that we have jurisdiction, see art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const., but remand the statement to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting because the statement does not meet the statutory requirements in its current form.

The first issue before this Court is to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. Judicial review of financial impact statements is a recent development. In a majority of the cases, the financial impact statements were considered at the same time as the other matters pertaining to the ballot initiative. Based on recent changes to the constitution which now require certain deadlines for the issuance of an opinion relating to the amendment and summary, however, the financial impact statement review often occurs after the other ballot initiative matters have been resolved, thus requiring this Court to review our jurisdiction anew.

There are two constitutional provisions which are the asserted basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. First, article V, section 3(b)(10), provides that the Court:

(10) Shall, when requested by the attorney general pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV, render an advisory opinion of the justices, addressing issues as provided by general law.

Art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const, (emphasis added). Article IV, section 10, in turn, provides as follows:

SECTION 10. Attorney General.— The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to. Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion no later than April 1 of the year in which the initiative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI.

Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const, (emphasis added). Accordingly, initiative petitions, including the requirement for financial impact statements as they relate to initiative petitions, are one of the rare instances where this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction incorporates the provisions set forth by general law.

Section 100.371 of the Florida Statutes sets forth the overall procedural process relating to the requirements for placing an initiative on the ballot, including those matters that this Court must address relating to a financial impact statement:

(1) Constitutional amendments proposed by initiative shall be placed on the ballot for the general election, provided the initiative has been filed with the Secretary of State no later than February 1 of the year the general election is held. A petition shall be deemed to be filed with the Secretary of State upon the date the secretary determines that the petition has been signed by the constitutionally required number of electors.
(5)(a) Within 45 days after receipt of a proposed revision or amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the Secretary of State, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall complete an analysis and financial impact statement to be placed on the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall submit the financial impact statement to the Attorney General and Secretary of State.
(b) The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall provide an opportunity for any proponents or opponents of the initiative to submit information and may solicit information or analysis from any other entities or agencies, including the Office of Economic and Demographic Research.
(c) All meetings of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall be open to the public. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, jointly, shall be the sole judge for the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of this subsection.
1. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference is established to review, analyze, and estimate the financial impact of amendments to or revisions of the State Constitution proposed by initiative. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall consist of four principals: one person from the Executive Office of the Governor; the coordinator of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, or his or her designee; one person from the professional staff of the Senate; and one person from the professional staff of the House of Representatives. Each principal shall have appropriate fiscal expertise in the subject matter of the initiative. A Financial Impact Estimating Conference may be appointed for each initiative.
2. Principals of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall reach a consensus or majority concurrence on a clear and unambiguous financial impact statement, no more than 75 words in length, and immediately submit the statement to the Attorney General. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Financial Impact Estimating Conference from setting forth a range of potential impacts in the financial impact statement. Any financial impact statement that a court finds not to be in accordance with this section shall be remanded solely to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall redraft the financial impact statement within 15 days.
3. If the members of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference are unable to agree on the statement required by this subsection, or if the Supreme Court has rejected the initial submission by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference and no redraft has been approved by the Supreme Court by 5 p.m. on the 75th day before the election, the following statement shall appear on the ballot pursuant to s. 101.161(1): “The financial impact of this measure, if any, cannot be reasonably determined at this time.”
(d) The financial impact statement must be separately contained and be set forth after the ballot summary as required in s. 101.161(1).
(e) 1. Any financial impact statement that the Supreme Court finds not to be in accordance with this subsection shall be remanded solely to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting, provided the court’s advisory opinion is rendered at least 75 days before the election at which the question of ratifying the amendment will be presented. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall prepare and adopt a revised financial impact statement no later than 5 p.m. on the 15th day after the date of the court’s opinion.
2. If, by 5 p.m. on the 75th day before the election, the Supreme Court has not issued an advisory opinion on the initial financial impact statement prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for an initiative amendment that otherwise meets the legal requirements for ballot placement, the financial impact statement shall be deemed approved for placement on the ballot.
3. In addition to the financial impact statement required by this subsection, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall draft an initiative financial information statement. The initiative financial information statement should describe in greater detail than the financial impact statement any projected increase or decrease in revenues or costs that the state or local governments would likely experience if the ballot measure were approved. If appropriate, the initiative financial information statement may include both estimated dollar amounts and a description placing the estimated dollar amounts into context. The initiative financial information statement must include both a summary of not more than 500 words and additional detailed information that includes the assumptions that were made to develop the financial impacts, workpapers, and any other information deemed relevant by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference.
4. The Department of State shall have printed, and shall furnish to each supervisor of elections, a copy of the summary from the initiative financial information statements. The supervisors shall have the summary from the initiative financial information statements available at each polling place and at the main office of the supervisor of elections upon request.
5. The Secretary of State and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research shall make available on the Internet each initiative financial information statement in its entirety. In addition, each supervisor of elections whose office has a website shall post the summary from each initiative financial information statement on the website. Each supervisor shall include the Internet addresses for the information statements on the Secretary of State’s and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research’s websites in the publication or mailing required by s. 101.20.
(6) The Department of State may adopt rules in accordance with s. 120.54 to carry out the provisions of subsections (l)-(5).

§ 100.371, Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). Section 100.371(5) expressly provides that this Court shall review financial impact statements in its advisory opinion and sets forth the appropriate procedure. Section 101.161(1) also provides guidance, demonstrating that the financial impact statement is simply another aspect of the initiative process, the same as the ballot summary and the ballot title:

Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure 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 after the list of candidates, followed by the word “yes” and also by the word “no,” and shall be styled in such a manner that a yes vote will indicate approval of the proposal and a “no” vote will indicate rejection. The wording of the substance of the amendment or other public measure and the ballot title to appear on the ballot shall be embodied in the joint resolution, constitutional revision commission proposal, constitutional convention proposal, taxation and budget reform commission proposal, or enabling resolution or ordinance. Except for amendments and ballot language proposed by joint resolution, the substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement; not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. In addition, for every amendment proposed by initiative, the ballot shall include, following the ballot summary, a separate financial impact statement concerning the measure prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference in accordance with s. 100.371(6). 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.

§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2006).

Reading article V, section 3(b)(10) and article IV, section 10 of the Florida Constitution, in pari materia with the statutory provisions relating to the requirements imposed on initiative petitions, we find that this Court has jurisdiction. The Constitution mandates that this Court review all issues relating to initiative petitions as provided by general law. Section 100.371 clearly mandates that one of the areas to be reviewed by this Court is the financial impact statement. In three separate places, section 100.371 refers to this Court performing a judicial review of the statement to ensure its conformity with statutory requirements. Even section 101.161 is not so explicit with regard to the judicial review over the other portions relating to the validity of the initiative petitions. In fact, since the whole construction of the statute contemplates this Court’s review of financial impact statements, the entire provision becomes a nullity if we construe the statute contrary to its clear and plain intent. See, e.g., Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (Fla.2006) (holding that a statute must be construed in its entirety and as a whole). Based on these provisions of general law, the Florida Constitution mandates that the advisory opinion address the financial impact statement portion of the initiative process.

Next, this Court must determine whether the financial impact statement at issue complies with the requirements provided in the Florida Constitution and the statutes. Article XI, section 5, Florida Constitution, addresses financial impact statements and provides in relevant part:

(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the proháble financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.

(Emphasis added.) Section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2006), now addresses the financial impact statement as follows:

(5)(a) Within 45 days after receipt of a proposed revision or amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the Secretary of State, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall complete an analysis and financial impact statement to be placed on the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall submit the financial impact statement to the Attorney General and Secretary of State.
(c)....
2. Principals of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall reach a consensus or majority concurrence on a clear and unambiguous financial impact statement, no more than 75 words in length, and immediately submit the statement to the Attorney General. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Financial Impact Estimating Conference from setting forth a range of potential impacts in the financial impact statement.

§ 100.371(5), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). In deciding the validity of a financial impact statement, the Court has limited itself only to address whether the statement is clear, unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-five words, and is limited to address the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to the state or local governments. See Advisory Op. re Protect People from Health Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So.2d 1186, 1194 (Fla.2006).

In this case, the proposed financial impact statement provides as follows:

The direct impact of this amendment on local government expenditures cannot be determined precisely. Over each two year election cycle, local governments cumulatively will incur significant costs (millions of dollars statewide). Costs will vary depending on the processes employed by cities and counties in obtaining approval for plan amendments. The direct impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant. There will be no direct impact on government revenues.

The sponsor asserts that the second and the third sentences within the financial impact statement are overly vague or confusing and thus defective.

Upon review, we find that the second sentence is indeed misleading. Specifieally, it states that “[o]ver each two year election cycle, local governments cumulatively will incur significant costs (millions of dollars statewide).” This statement, however, assumes that numerous local governments will have out-of-cycle changes to their respective comprehensive land use plans, necessitating special elections. Although the Financial Impact Estimating Commission is speculating that local government will be holding special out-of-cycle elections, the statement itself does not indicate that the estimated millions of dollars is dependant upon how many times counties and cities throughout the State will attempt out-of-cycle amendments to their comprehensive land use plans. In fact, the apparent purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit the amount of revisions to a county’s or a city’s comprehensive land use plan. The Commission’s assumption assumes that the proposed amendment will not have its intended effect. Because this sentence is misleading and does not inform the voter that the anticipated costs are contingent upon such factors, the Court finds that the second sentence in the financial impact statement does not comply with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes. The Court remands the statement to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting pursuant to section 100.371(5)(e)l.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

BELL, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANTERO, J., concurs.

BELL, J.,

dissenting.

Guided by the perspective that this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and reading the applicable constitutional provisions in pari materia, I conclude that this Court’s jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion regarding an initiative petition is limited to those issues concerning the validity of the initiative petition itself. And, because the validity of the initiative petition itself is not dependent upon the validity of the financial impact statement, I dissent to this Court’s advisory opinion on the financial impact statement in this case.

The majority concludes that this Court has jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion on the validity of the financial impact statement. Specifically, by focusing upon the references to “general law” in article IV, section 10, and article V, section 3(b)(10) of the Florida Constitution, the majority determines that this case is “one of the rare instances where this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction incorporates the provisions set forth by general law.” Majority op. at 211. Having concluded that it may look outside the constitution itself for jurisdiction, the majority then looks to the “general law,” section 100.371, Florida Statutes, which clearly contemplates this Court’s review of financial impact statements. See id. at 211-13; § 100.371(5)(c)-(e), Fla. Stat. In other words, the basis of the majority’s jurisdictional conclusion is that when article IV, section 10, and article V, section 3(b)(10) are construed in pari materia with the general law in section 100.371, this Court has jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion regarding financial impact statements. Majority op. at 213-14. However, as I explain below, I believe the plain language of our constitution leads to the conclusion that this Court lacks jurisdiction.

At the outset, I note that this Court is one of limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, “[t]he jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the narrow class of cases enumerated in article V, section 3(b) of the Florida Constitution.” Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Fla.2003) (quoting Mystan Marine, Inc. v. Harrington, 339 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla.1976)). As we recently stated in In re Holder, 945 So.2d 1130, 1134 (Fla.2006),

[B]efore this Court can take action, the Florida Constitution must give us the power to do so. This principle recognizes that our authority is not boundless; it is circumscribed by the language of the Florida Constitution. Nothing can be more consistent with the concept of judicial restraint.

Further, “[njeither this court nor the Legislature has the power to extend the jurisdiction of this court beyond the confines of the constitutional prescription.” City of Dunedin v. Bense, 90 So.2d 300, 302 (Fla.1956).

In light of this limitation to our jurisdiction, I examine the plain language of the constitutional provisions cited by the majority (section 3(b)(10) of article V and section 10 of article IV) as well as the plain language of two provisions not discussed by the majority (sections 3 and 5 of article XI). See Chiles v. Phelps, 714 So.2d 453, 457 (Fla.1998) (“Any inquiry into the proper interpretation of a constitutional provision must begin with an examination of that provision’s explicit language.”) (quoting Fla. Soc’y of Ophthalmology v. Fla. Optometric Ass’n, 489 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Fla.1986)).

The plain language of article V, section 3(b)(10), empowers this Court to render advisory opinions to the attorney general when requested pursuant to article IV, section 10. Specifically, article V, section 3 provides in part as follows:

(b) JURISDICTION. — The supreme court:
(10) Shall, when requested by the attorney general pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV, render an advisory opinion of the justices, addressing issues as provided by general law.

(Emphasis added.) In turn, section 10 of article IV provides:

SECTION 10. Attorney General.— The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section S of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion no later than April 1 of the year in which the initiative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, while the attorney general must request the advisory opinion as prescribed by general law, our constitution expressly limits the subject matter of such a request “to the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to section 3 of article XI.” This being the case, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the validity of the initiative petition. And, if the validity of the petition is not dependent upon the validity of the financial impact statement, this Court does not have jurisdiction to render an opinion on the validity of the financial impact statement. As I mil now show, nothing in our constitution or our prior precedent suggests that the validity of an initiative petition is dependent upon the financial impact statement.

Based upon the plain language of our constitution, the validity of a petition circulated under section 3 of article XI is only dependent upon the limited factors discussed in section 3 of article XI. Significantly, section 10 of article IV, which authorizes the attorney general to seek an opinion regarding an initiative petition, only refers to section 3 of article XI. And section 3 of article XI only discusses the substance of the initiative petition itself as well as the number of signatures required for filing. Specifically, section 3 of article XI states:

SECTION 3. Initiative. — 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, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith. It may be invoked by filing with the custodian of state records a petition containing a copy of the proposed revision or amendment, signed by a number of electors in each of one half of the congressional districts of the state, and of the state as a whole, equal to eight percent of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state as a whole in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen.

Accordingly, this Court’s only duty is to look to the substance of the initiative petition and determine whether the revision or amendment proposed by initiative “em-bracéis] but one subject and matter directly connected therewith,” with an exception for provisions that limit the “power of government to raise revenue.” Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const.; see Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Protect People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease, & Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla.2006) (“The Court’s inquiry, when determining the validity of initiative petitions, is limited to two legal issues: whether the petition satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and whether the ballot titles and summaries are printed in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1999).”) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y General re Amendment to Bar Gov’t from

Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d 888, 890-91 (Fla.2000)). Moreover, our prior precedent does not state that in order to determine whether an initiative petition is valid, this Court must find that the financial impact statement is also valid. On the contrary, this Court has repeatedly noted over the years that our role in reviewing the initiative petition is very limited. See Advisory Op. to Att’y General re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.1994).

Most importantly, nothing in the plain language of our constitution suggests that the validity of the petition, for purposes of section 3 of article XI, is dependent upon this Court’s determination that the financial impact statement is also valid. Section 8 of article XI makes no reference to a financial impact statement as a part of the initiative petition. It certainly does not require that a proposed financial impact statement accompany the initiative petition. And section 10 of article IV does not authorize the attorney general to request an advisory opinion regarding the validity of the independent financial impact statement. Therefore, because nothing in our constitution indicates that the validity of an initiative petition is dependent upon the validity of the financial impact statement, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an opinion regarding the validity of a financial impact statement.

Indeed, article XI, section 5(c) is the sole reference in Florida’s constitution to financial impact statements. Specifically, article XI, section 5(c), provides:

(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.

(Emphasis added.) However, reading sections 3 and 5 of article XI, it is clear that the initiative petition and the financial impact statement are independent considerations. For instance, section 5(c) of article XI requires that the Legislature, not the citizens filing the initiative petition, make provision for the financial impact statement. Also, this financial impact statement is not even prepared until after an initiative is filed pursuant to section 3 of article XI. Thus, the financial impact statement mandated by section 5 of article XI is an additional condition that must be met before the otherwise valid initiative petition is placed before the voters for election. Therefore, the grant of jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion on the validity of an initiative petition itself does not encompass the independent consideration of the validity of the financial impact statement.

To summarize, guided by the perspective that this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and reading article TV, section 10, article V, section 3(b)(10), and article XI, sections 3 and 5, in pari materia, I conclude that this Court’s jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion regarding an initiative petition is limited to those issues concerning the validity of the initiative petition itself. This jurisdiction does not include issuing an advisory opinion regarding the validity of the separately mandated financial impact statement. This being the case, it is axiomatic that this Court’s jurisdiction cannot be expanded by general law to address issues which the constitution, by its plain language, has expressly limited. Therefore, section 100.371, Florida Statutes, which contemplates that this Court will review financial impact statements, is an invalid attempt to expand this Court’s constitutionally limited jurisdiction. And, respectfully, the majority’s re-banee upon that statute as a basis for jurisdiction to render its advisory opinion in this case is improper.

Accordingly, I find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion regarding the validity of financial impact statements. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

CANTERO, J., concurs. 
      
      . This Court approved the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot. See Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Referenda Required For Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 938 So.2d 501 (Fla.2006).
     
      
      . In this opinion, I explain the reasoning behind my unelaborated dissents from this Court's most recent review and approval of financial impact statements corresponding to initiative petitions. See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 959 So.2d 195, 203 (Fla. 2007) (Bell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting State Spending for Experimentation that Involves the Destruction of a Live Human Embryo, 959 So.2d 210, 215 (Fla. 2007) (Bell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
     
      
      . Though I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in this case, I do not intend to imply that this Court can never have jurisdiction by reference to general law. I agree with the majority that general law establishes this Court’s jurisdiction in “rare instances,” but I believe this is true only when expressly provided by the constitution. In this case, based on the specific issue and the particular constitutional provisions involved, I cannot agree with the majority that this case presents one of those rare instances.
     
      
      . Admittedly, both article V, section 3(b)(10), and article IV, section 10, reference enabling legislation. But the only advisory opinion mentioned is one that addresses the validity of an initiative petition circulated pursuant to section 3 of article XI. See art. IV, § 10, art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. No mention is made of rendering an advisory opinion regarding the validity of any financial impact statement issued pursuant to section 5(c) of article XI.
     
      
      . Additionally, general law provides that the petition signed by the electors must include the ballot summary and title, both of which are prepared by the sponsor. §§ 101.161(2), 15.21(2), 100.371(2), Fla. Stat. (2006); Fla. Admin. Code 1S-2.009(1), (2)(d), (3). Also, the form must be approved prior to or as a prerequisite to circulation. § 100.371(2), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admi-.Code 1S-2.009(1)-(2).
     
      
      . Consistent with article XI, section 3, general law, in particular section 15.21(2), Florida Statutes (2006), defines an "initiative petition” by providing that it consists of the “ballot title, substance, and text of the proposed revision or amendment.” This definition is also consistent with rule 1S-2.009, Florida Administrative Code, “Constitutional Amendment by Initiative Petition,” which requires submission of the "initiative petition” (which includes, among other things, the ballot title and summary) to the Division of Elections "for approval as to format prior to circulation of the proposed initiative amendment.” See Fla. Admin. Code 1S-2.009(1), (2)(d). There is no mention in these provisions of a financial impact statement.
     
      
      . The Legislature has provided, by general law, that its statement of the financial impact will be prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference See § 100.371(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code 1S-2.009(5) ("Other than providing information or a method by which the petition form may be returned by mail to the sponsoring committee, no additional information or materials that support the proposed amendment shall be printed directly on the form.”). The financial impact statement is not prepared by the sponsor and is not signed by any electors.
     
      
      . My conclusion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the validity of a financial impact statement does not mean that a financial impact statement cannot be reviewed by a court of original jurisdiction to ensure its compliance with general law. It seems that a court of original jurisdiction may review the financial impact statement for compliance with section 100.371. See art. V, §§ 5-6, Fla. Const.; § 26.012, Fla. Stat. (2006) (prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit courts); § 34.01, Fla. Stat. (2006) (prescribing the jurisdiction of the county courts). In fact, section 100.371(5)(c)(2) states that "[a]ny financial impact statement that a court finds not to be in accordance with this section shall be remanded solely to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting.” (Emphasis added.)
      Further, I recognize that this Court has reviewed financial impact statements in the past and that we adopted Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.510(b)(7) in November 2006, indicating that we will continue reviewing financial impact statements as a part of our advisory opinion to the attorney general. However, prior to this case, this Court has never specifically addressed its jurisdiction to review financial impact statements. Thus, our past precedent has never spoken to, and therefore is not binding on the question of, whether this Court has jurisdiction to review financial impact statements. But now that the question is before us, we must defer to the express language of the Florida Constitution and the limitations it places on this Court's original jurisdiction.
     