in'the amendment text. See id. at 421. We specifically addressed use of the term “protect” in the ballot title and summary, and rejected the challenger’s analogy to the use of the term “save” that was rejected in Save Our Everglades, noting that the “use of the term ‘protect’ d[id] not constitute impermissible political rhetoric or the adjudication of a fact.” Workplace Smoking, 814 So.2d at 421. We recognized that we had approved prior ballot titles and summaries containing the term “protect,” and stated that we were “unable to discern the logic as to how the application of essentially the same term” could be acceptable in one case and unacceptable in -another. Id.; see also Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Pub. Prot. from Repeated Med. Malpractice, 880 So.2d 667 (Fla.2004) (<HOLDING>). Our analysis in the Workplace Smoking and
holding that complaints regarding violation of employer policies unrelated to impermissible discrimination do not fall within the scope of title vii and therefore do not qualify for protection under the statute holding that the use of excessive force does not constitute a prison condition in the ordinary sense of the term holding a 1 signature requirement as within the outer boundaries of support the state may require before affording political parties ballot position holding that the use of the term protection in the ballot title did not constitute impermissible political or emotional rhetoric holding that the erroneous use of the term burglary in the beginning of the written jury instructions was not fundamental because any error was cured by the correct use of the term theft in the latter portion of the written instructions