removes a class of offenders from automatic voter restoration eligibility based on the nature of their offenses, thus removing the possibility that voters be forced to “accept part of an initiative proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the constitution which they support.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen, re Standards for Establishing Legis. Dist. Boundaries, 2 So.3d 175, 180 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Amend, to Bar Gov’t From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000)). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not engage in impermissible logrolling. See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation System, 769 So.2d at 369 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the proposed amendment does not
holding that there is no impermissible logrolling where the only subject embraced in the proposed amendment is whether the people of this state want to include a provision in them constitution mandating that the government build a high speed ground transportation system holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding that there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with  the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution holding that the north dakota constitution is a document of limitations upon the state government unlike the united states constitution which is a grant of power to the federal government holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them