however, that the ballot summary is defective for three reasons: (A) it fails to inform voters that deauthorization of slot machines would require another constitutional amendment; (B) it fails to inform voters of the proposed amendment’s effect on the extant constitutional provisions concerning lotteries; and (C) it fails to inform voters that the amendment authorizes the Legislature to license and regulate slot machines. We address these in turn. A. Is the Ballot Summary Defective Because It Fails to Inform Voters that Deauthorization of Slot Machines Would Require Another Constitutional Amendment? The opponents first argue that the summary fails to inform voters that de-au-thorization of slot machines would require another constitutional amendment. See Askew, 421 So.2d at 156 (<HOLDING>). Last year we rejected this same argument as
holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto holding that an affidavit denying what is established by ones own evidence  does not preclude summary judgment holding the ballot summary defective and commenting that the problem therefore lies not with what the summary says but rather with what it does not say holding that what is important is not simply that the element at issue is defined in terms of what it does but that the term as the name for a structure has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art holding if the language of a deed or other written instrument is clear and unambiguous the intention of the parties is gathered from the instrument it is what the grant or said and not what he intended to say