Research the Six Amendments Before You Vote

Posted
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The upcoming election on November 5th will ask voters to consider six amendments to the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution is the legal document that establishes the structure of the state government, defines citizen’s rights, and identifies the responsibilities of government officials. For an amendment to pass, 60% of those voting must agree. Florida is one of only a few states that requires a supermajority to pass amendments.

Amendments can be placed on the ballot in several ways, and this year, two citizen-initiated amendments, marijuana (#3) and abortion (#4), are on the ballot along with four additional amendments that were placed on the ballot by a majority of the Florida Legislature.

The six amendments on the ballot are discussed here:

#1:  Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards

#2:  Right to Fish and Hunt

#3:  Legalization of Adult Personal Use of Marijuana

#4:  Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion 

#5:  Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions

#6:  Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement

 


 

Amendment #1: Partisan School Board Elections

Voters will be asked to decide whether school board member elections should be switched from nonpartisan to partisan in an amendment on the November 5th ballot.   

Background

Since 1998, school board member elections in Florida have been non-partisan like most states in the US.  Whether an election is non-partisan or partisan will determine the information a voter receives about a candidate and who may or may not vote in the primary elections. In a non-partisan election, all voters of any political party can participate in the primaries to elect school board members. In a partisan primary election, generally, only voters who are members of a particular political party may vote for candidates of that party. In Collier County, the school board election was resolved in the August Primary, not the upcoming General Election.

Support for Amendment #1

  • School board races have already become partisan.
  • Identifying a candidate’s party would provide more transparency to voters.
  • A candidate’s party will provide insight into how a candidate would vote on issues of importance that may fall on party lines.
  • If partisan, the race would better align with other partisan offices.

Opposition to Amendment #1

  • Only some voters could vote (school boards are often decided in the primary when No Party Affiliation (NPA) voters are restricted from voting.
  • Politics have no place in children’s education.
  • Partisan elections would increase the angst and division in an already highly charged educational environment.
  • A non-partisan board would have more incentive to collaborate and compromise.

If Amendment #1 passes, the election could become partisan effective in the 2026 primary season, ahead of a general election in 2026 and party affiliation would be listed on the ballot.

 


 

Amendment #2: Preserving the Right to Hunt and Fish 

This amendment will preserve the right to hunt and fish in the constitution and establish that hunting and fishing, not government programs, should become the preferred way of managing and controlling wildlife.

As of 2023, twenty-three states have the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions. While the current Florida laws already support this right, the Constitutional Sportsmen Foundation, a bipartisan non-profit based in Washington, DC, drafted the amendment to ensure that hunting and fishing remain a fundamental right. 

The proposed amendment would still mean that sportsmen are subject to regulations set by the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to protect wildlife.  The FWC sets rules about hunting and fishing during specific seasons and with certain bag limits.  Importantly, this amendment would define individual hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife rather than using other scientific methods recommended by the government.

Support for Amendment #2

  • The right to hunt and fish needs to be protected from changing attitudes about wildlife protection.
  • There is a concern that hunting or fishing might lead to criminalization of the practice, and the amendment would prevent that.
  • Hunting and fishing generate millions of dollars in revenue and support thousands of jobs in Florida.

Opposition to Amendment #2

  • This amendment is unnecessary since existing statutes already protect these rights.
  • The amendment may strip citizens of the power to protect and preserve fish or wild animals. 
  • Gun safety rules when hunting may be ignored.
  • Invasion of property and trespassing to hunt and fish may supersede owners’ rights.

If this amendment passes, it will strengthen Floridian’s rights to hunt and fish, offering protection from possible legislation.  It will also make hunting and fishing the preferred method of managing wildlife. If it fails, the existing right to hunt and fish and current wildlife management methods will remain.

 


 

Amendment #3: Legalizing Adult Personal Use of Marijuana

One of the most discussed issues, the legalization of recreational use of marijuana for adults, will be on The November 5th ballot in Florida with proposed Amendment #3.

Marijuana use by adults is legal in 24 states prior to this 2024 election, but only medical marijuana is allowed currently in Florida. The amendment was sponsored by a citizen’s initiative led by Smart and Safe Florida, a political action committee formed and predominantly supported by Trulieve, the state’s leading medical dispensary company. Current sales of medical marijuana are over $2 billion a year, with 871,000 registered patients.

The proposed amendment would eliminate the criminal liability for adult personal use (subject to weight limits). It would permit the approved medical centers to cultivate and sell marijuana to adults without a prescription.  

Support for Amendment #3

  • The government should not restrict personal freedom to use/possess marijuana by adults.
  • Supporters say marijuana is low risk and the drug has medicinal advantages.
  • Adult use has not led to an epidemic of abuse or increased use among youth.
  • Only authorized organizations would be permitted to grow and sell marijuana.
  • Legalization will eliminate the black market and help regulate safety of the drug.
  • Legalizing marijuana would generate significant revenue for dispensaries and for the state government (taxes).
  • Decriminalization would lessen the strain on law enforcement.

Opposition to Amendment #3

  • Concerns exist about addiction and abuse, despite supporters’ claims.
  • Driving under the influence of marijuana will increase risks to citizens.
  • Greed is driving the interest of supporters for this amendment.
  • The black market is still thriving in states where pot was legalized.
  • Perceived by youth of marijuana will decline and stimulate increased use.
  • The use of marijuana by youth is harmful to cognitive development and sleep.
  • The federal government still classifies marijuana as a Class I drug, and this amendment would not change that.

If this amendment passes, law enforcement and court changes will be made, and the Office of Medical Marijuana (OMMU) is expected to continue regulating and licensing those who can sell the drug. It is somewhat uncertain what will happen with citizens arrested for crimes that no longer exist; some stages have expunged the records of non-violent offenders after the legalization of the drug.  

 


 

Amendment #4: Limiting Interference with Abortion

One of the most highly polarized issues today is whether the government has a right to restrict a woman’s right to abortion.  The amendment declares abortion as legal up until viability (the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb), and viability is generally considered 24 weeks. Abortion would only be legal beyond this level if the health of the mother is at significant risk. The amendment does not change current Florida statutes requiring parental notification should a minor seek a termination.

For the past fifty years, the US Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade enshrined the right of a woman to choose abortion before viability. Before that time, abortion was illegal.

With a changing political atmosphere in 2022, the US Supreme Court voted to overturn the 1973 law, allowing each state to make its own laws about abortion.  Florida’s legislature voted to ban abortion after the sixth week (from the patient’s last menstrual period), except in extreme circumstances, and this ban became law in Florida in 2024.

Amendment #4 was proposed by a citizen’s initiative organized by the non-profit Floridians Protecting Freedom. To get the measure on the ballot, the initiative gathered close to a million certified signatures on a petition. 

Support for Amendment #4

  • Individual reproductive decisions are highly personal and should not be made by the government over the wishes of a woman or advice from a doctor.
  • The eras before Roe v Wade were filled with unsafe, illegal abortions, and they affected marginalized communities disproportionately.
  • Increased maternal health risks and deaths have already been evidenced in states with total or six-week bans.
  • Most abortions occur in the first trimester, and late terminations are exceedingly rare and would be illegal unless the mother’s life was threatened.
  • Six weeks pregnant (which is just two weeks after the missed period) is too early to determine pregnancy with confidence or schedule a procedure.
  • A ban reduces the availability of trained obstetrical care due to vague rules and fears of legal action and penalties.

Opposition to Amendment #4

  • The Catholic Church and some other religious groups consider any interference with conception to be a severe violation of beliefs.
  • After conception, a fetus should be regarded as a person.
  • Society should protect the innocent, regardless of the wishes of the mother or medical advice.
  • The language in the amendment should be more explicit about the definition of a medical professional.
  • There is concern that the amendment might change the existing laws about parental involvement.
  • Taxpayers may end up funding terminations if this is passed.

If the amendment is approved, it will become part of the constitution and nullify the current six-week ban on abortion care, changing the ban to 24 weeks (or professional assessment of viability) except in life-threatening cases. 

 


 

Amendment #5: Annual Increases in the Homestead Exemption

As property values have increased dramatically in Florida, the state legislature proposed an adjustment to reduce the impact on homeowners and adjust with inflation. Homestead exemptions in Florida result in a deduction from the property value when calculating property taxes. The maximum exemption for homeowners who have applied for “homestead” in Florida is $50,000.  The exemption was last adjusted in 2008. The amendment proposes increasing the amount of exemption annually if the Consumer Price Increase (CPI) increases. School tax levies would be excluded from this adjustment. 

Support for Amendment #5

  • Exemption amounts need to be adjusted since inflation has reduced the exemption’s value over the past several years.
  • With the rise in cost of home ownership, a break would help stressed homeowners.
  • A reduction in property taxes would create growth in home ownership.

Opposition to Amendment #5

  • If property taxes decline, other taxes will have to increase to fund important government programs.
  • The burden of government programs would shift to other participants in the property tax system who are not homesteaded.
  • Resulting shortages in government programs will hurt citizens. 
  • Property owners already have significant tax breaks in Florida.

If this amendment is approved, property taxes for those homesteaded would show a modest decline starting January 1, 2025.

 


 

Amendment #6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Offices

Spending by candidates and political action groups has dramatically increased in the past several years. The Florida legislature initiated this amendment that would repeal the public financing of campaigns for statewide offices. This same amendment was on the 2010 ballot but failed.

Florida is one of several states that provide some public financing for campaigns for governor and the cabinet of the Florida government.  The voluntary public office funding program has been in the constitution since 1998 and provides the matching of personal but not corporate or PAC funds if a candidate agrees to total spending limits.  Individual donations of up to $250 per person and candidate donations are matched for a participating candidate. A total spending limit is also required for participating candidates. In 2022, all candidates for governor received some public financing based on the donations matched under the program. The fund has historically provided $4 to $13 million each four-year election cycle

Support for Amendment #6

  • Eliminating public funding and reducing campaign aid will stop the cycle of rapidly increasing spending. 
  • The program’s limits placed on a candidate violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 
  • Taxpayers’ dollars should not be used to support campaign spending.
  • These dollars could be put towards programs that would be more beneficial for Florida taxpayers. 

Opposition to Amendment #6

  • Costs for running for office are rapidly increasing, and candidates need help.
  • Eliminating the program would give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates.
  • If no funding is available, candidates will be forced to turn to increasing numbers of private sources and PACs for funding.
  • Candidates with state funding will be more responsive to the voters as they are insulated from special interest groups.
  • Repeal would only further discourage the participation of more diverse candidates.

If this amendment passes, all public funding for candidates for these statewide offices would cease, and no limits on campaign expenditures would exist.

The Supervisor of Elections, Melissa Blazier, reminds voters to fill out both pages of the ballot. The last day to request a mail-in ballot is October 24, and early voting will be from October 21 to November 2. Election Day is November 5th. For more information about all the issues and candidates on your ballot, visit www.Vote411.org.

 

abortion, election, cannabis (drug), legalization of non-medical cannabis in the united states, tax, pregnancy, roe v. wade, abortion law, fetal viability, property tax, law, government, politics, homestead exemption in florida, non-partisan democracy, political party, justice, primary election, hunting, popular initiative, constitution of florida, social issues, nonpartisanism, issues in ethics, florida, ballot access, public finance, inflation, drug liberalization, minors and abortion, medical cannabis, voting, drug, tax break, tax exemption, political science, governance, political action committee, property, health, constitutional amendment, abortion-rights movements, consumer price index, constitution of the united states, reproductive rights, public sphere, supreme court of the united states, unsafe abortion, over-the-counter drug, prescription drug, public law, owner-occupancy, obstetrics, black market, medical law, real estate appraisal, politics of the united states, mother, fetus, human reproduction, maternal health, united states, constitution, risk, campaign finance, florida legislature, elections, majority, subsidy, tax deduction, wildlife, supermajority, human rights, accountability, political events, democracy, driving under the influence, rights, fishing, expungement, common law, women's rights, social institutions, pregnancy with abortive outcome, wildlife management, health care, civil rights and liberties, political law, trespass to land, wildlife conservation, health professional, homestead exemption, addiction, state legislature (united states), medical ethics, group decision-making, federal government of the united states, crime, gun safety, political corruption, citizenship, confidence, ballot, catholic church, education, united states law, complaint, human pregnancy, women, medicine, criminalization, menstruation, birth control, forms of government, society of the united states, medical controversies, repeal, legislature, civil liberties, ownership, fish, law of the united states, government finances, methods of birth control, fundamental rights, social aspects of psychoactive drugs, race (human categorization), ethically disputed medical practices, health law, public health, fertilisation, social ethics, bag limits, nonprofit organization, fear, sleep, social psychology, patient, medical humanities, political economy, committee, health policy, petition, civil law (common law), public policy, abortion debate, culture, science and law, economy, medical specialties, cannabis, psychoactive drugs, scientific method, reproduction in mammals, legal liability, definition, sexual health, language, child, 2020 south korean legislative election, law enforcement, legal documents, payments, regulation, ethically disputed practices, criminal law, family planning, donation, medical treatments, washington, d.c., cost, professional ethics, identity politics, cannabaceae, company, clinical medicine, public economics, health sciences, menstrual cycle, bioethics, government documents, pharmacology, collier county, florida, applied ethics, entheogens, drug policy, fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution, individual psychoactive drugs, applied philosophy, constitutional law, causes of death, management, governor, private law, politics and race, social policy, fertility, legal issues in pregnancy, gender equality, cognitive development, property law, health economics, hazards, controversies, revenue, invasion, activism, law reform, statute, government-related organizations, ethically disputed political practices, uterus, money, drugs, political charters, motherhood, human overpopulation, liberal arts education, criminal justice, legislation, natural resources law, human development, political ideologies, policy, government and personhood, statutory law, sexual revolution, pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium, family, american politicians, legal writing, women's health, political positions of american politicians, business economics, psephology, public services, social movements, greed, chemicals in medicine, weight, consumer, political controversies, law and economics, criminology, atmosphere, mammalian pregnancy, finance, death, theory of medicine, american political people, medical jurisprudence, health issues in pregnancy, evaluation methods, drug control law, politicians, religion and drugs, business, pharmacy, social programs, reproduction, parliamentary procedure, childhood, health and politics, assistance, public administration, primate behavior, environmental social science, american political philosophy, political crimes, anti-corruption measures, candidates for president of the united states, public sector, childbirth, sexual reproduction, natural environment, comparisons, economy of the united states, products of chemical industry, contiguous united states, jurisprudence, united states federal policy, political scandals, trade, united states abortion law, real property law, pharmaceutical sciences, political parties, practice of medicine, ethnobotany, behavioural sciences, state crime, cultural anthropology, political positions of united states presidential candidates, legislative branch of the united states government, regulation of chemicals, environmental law, civil law (legal system)

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here