Florida voters have 12 very important amendments on the ballot this year.
The language in these amendments can be confusing and several of the amendments have different issues bundled together. Each amendment proposal needs at least 60 percent of votes to be enshrined in the Florida Constitution.
I have read and researched each amendment; and studied the pros and cons. In some instances, my first initial “gut feeling” of a certain way to vote is outweighed by the extra issues bundled with it and/or even though something sounds good on the surface, in the long run it may not be what Florida truly needs.
Here are my recommendations:
Amendment #1 – Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption
This amendment, if passed, would alleviate the assessed property taxes on the portion of property valued at $100,000 to $125,000.
Currently there is a full homestead exemption on the first $25,00 of assessed property value and a second exemption for the value between $50,000 and $75,000. This exemption would be added to the property valued between $100,000 and $125,000.
The supporters of this amendment say that it would save homeowners a few hundred dollars and would allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, which, in turn, puts that money into the private market and will create economic activity.
The opposition notes that counties will have less money being generated off property taxes thus forcing local governments to increase taxes in other ways and means; likely raising mils or cutting county services. It is also worrisome of how to continue to give county employee raises if the county loses that additional money. An estimate by staff aides, to the Florida Legislature, estimated Florida’s cities would lose over $600 million alone in the first year. Many civic reformers believe such tax measures should be resolved by the governor and legislature; they don’t belong in a state constitution.
(Remember, this amendment would only affect homes that exceed $125,000 in value.)
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #1
Amendment #2 – Limitations on Property Tax Exemptions
This same amendment was approved by Florida voters in 2008. That amendment set a cap of 10 percent on non-homestead parcels. Currently, that cap is set to expire in January, 2019. Amendment Two, if passed, would make that cap permanent.
This amendment affects non-homestead parcels, such as second homes, rental apartments, commercial non-residential properties and vacant land.
The supporters of this amendment say non-homestead properties, in particular commercial ones, already pay more taxes than homestead ones and need the tax cut. This amendment would ensure that, regardless of the market value increase, the taxable value can only increase by 10 percent and Floridians have an opportunity to avoid a major tax increase. Supporters of this amendment say the failure to pass this amendment will cause taxes to rise which will be shifted onto renters.
The opposition of this amendment could argue that the funds stemming from property taxes are vital to the well-being of the state and help Florida’s economy. They also argue the local governments would benefit from added revenue streams.
(However, it should be noted that Amendment Two is merely maintaining the status quo rather than further trimming the government budget. This is the same cap we, the voters, set back in 2008.)
MY RULING: Vote YES on Amendment #2
Amendment #3 – Voter Control of Gambling in Florida
This amendment would give voters, instead of the legislature, the exclusive right to decide whether a new facility offering casino-style games (slot machines, card games) can open in the state. This does not apply to dog racing, horse racing, jai alai, etc.
Supporters claim that Floridians should have the final word on casino gambling in the state.
Opposers to this amendment say, on the surface, this amendment empowers the voters. But, because the referendum would be statewide, voters in one part of the state would decide whether a gaming facility can open somewhere else. They also say the authority to pass such measures should remain with the Florida Legislature, rather than through the citizenry. The policy and lawmaking function has been delegated to our legislative branch of the government and it should stay there.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #3
Amendment #4 – Voting Restoration Amendment
This amendment deals with restoring voting rights to convicted felons. If the amendment passes convicted felons, with the exception of murder or felony sexual offenses, would have their voting rights automatically restored once they complete their sentences, including prison time, parole, probation, etc.
Supporters say that once individuals have paid their debt to society, in full, they should have their voting rights returned. They say the current system is a “bottleneck” that has disparate impacts on felons who are unable to navigate the system. Currently, felons must wait 5-10 years before fully regaining their voting rights.
Opposers say a process is already in place to award felons their voting rights. They say this amendment treats all felonies as though they were the same. It's a blanket, automatic restoration of voting rights. They argue it is an ‘all or nothing’ amendment that does not consider the nature of the crime committed. If it passes, no one will ever be allowed to consider the specifics of the crime or the post-release history of the criminal before that new voter registration card is issued.
(Amendment 4 only makes exceptions for murder and sexual offenses.)
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #4
Amendment #5 – Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize or Raise State Taxes or Fees
This amendment could make it more difficult for the Florida legislature to increase taxes and fees. If the amendment passes with 60 percent of the vote in November, any tax or fee increase on the state level, would require a two-thirds vote from the legislature. Currently, taxes and fees can be increased with a simple majority vote from the Florida legislature. The exception to that is any increase to the corporate income tax above five percent currently requires a 60 percent vote from the legislature.
Supporters say passing this amendment would replace the current threshold with a higher standard – two-thirds approval in both houses. This measure would make it more challenging to raises taxes than to cut taxes. This amendment would secure and protect future legislatures bent on raising taxes, thus making Florida a low tax state.
Opposers say this measure would impact a wide array of taxes and fees, including gasoline, sales taxes, fishing licenses, driver licenses and more, and seriously limit the state’s ability to raise revenues for basic government services or to meet crises such as hurricanes, recessions and so on. Many refer to the recession of 2008 as an example.
MY RULING: Vote YES on Amendment #5 (We always need to make it harder to raise taxes)
Amendment #6 – Rights of Crime Victims and Judges
This is a bundle of three separate issues.
•Establishment of “Marsy's Law,”
•An increase in the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75 years of age
•A prohibition of state courts from deferring to an administrative agency's interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits.
I personally have had a hard time in deciding how to vote on this amendment. I do not think different issues should be bundled together within one amendment. I agree with the Marcy’s Law and feel the victims of any crime should be given priority in any decision.
The problem with bundling is you have to look at all the issues and weigh out all the pros and cons, against each other.
With Amendment 6: one issue does, in fact, require a constitutional change – the matter of the judges ages - but the other two could be handled legislatively.
In the case of Marcy’s Law, it is mostly already in statute. But, in this amendment it is very vaguely written and would leave a lot of interpretation to be done by the court.
Most of the negative elements in this amendment outweigh the positive elements.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #6
Amendment #7 – First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Public Colleges and Universities
Again, this was another hard amendment for me to decide upon; this is another bundled amendment with different issues at hand. If it passes, it would make three changes to the Florida Constitution.
•Requires mandatory payment of death benefits and waives some educational expenses to qualifying survivors of first responders and military members who die performing official duties, which is already in state law, and adds paramedics and emergency medical technicians to the list;
•Requires supermajority votes by university trustees and state university system board of governors to raise or impose fees;
•Establishes the existing Florida College System as a constitutional entity.
As I stated, this one was hard for me to decide. I know and understand that changing the constitution is not something to be taken lightly. And I do not like bundling in amendments, at all.
The Pros to this amendment are that universities often cloak hikes in tuition prices through vague fees. This amendment would require a supermajority vote by the board of trustees to raise the cost of tuition and other fees. It would also assist the families of first responders and military members in a time of need. This amendment would require the state to provide funds to the families of first responders and military members who die in the line of duty.
The Cons to this amendment are stated as the language is too vague, particularly what specific death benefits would be. With the universities issues … opponents feel that the university leaders will not be able to address their own costs of education in their tuition rates and feel this could lead to gaps in educational services in the future.
MY RULING: Vote YES on Amendment #7
Amendment #8 – HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE BALLOT
Amendment #9 – Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces
Again, a bundled amendment …
If this amendment is passed by the Florida voters, it would
•Prohibit offshore oil and gas drilling in Florida's territorial waters
•Place a ban on “vaping” in enclosed, indoor workplaces
The supporters of this amendment have been concerned about the impact to the state if there were additional oil spills. This measure would strengthen limits on drilling off Florida’s coasts and prevent another Deep-Water Horizon incident. For the second part of the bundling, they feel that this amendment would bring much-needed limits on vaping, including indoor workplaces, much the same way smoking tobacco is.
Opposers of this amendment point to the rather large industry of gas and oil and the number of jobs created and the economic impact on the state and nation. In the issue of vaping, they also speak of technology and how much safer vaping is than smoking tobacco. Additionally, many civic reformers believe such measures should be resolved by the governor and legislature; they don’t belong in a state constitution.
This amendment also creates a problem, with the bundling, whereas a voter will have to vote in support of one amendment they don’t want in order to get an amendment they do want; or visa-versa.
A lot of people are using vaping as a source of tobacco smoking. Whereas it has been made clear, through the years, the effect of second-hand smoking, it has not been proven the effect of second-hand vaping. It could be really dangerous to set that as a precedent on issues that we’re really not clear about and putting them into the constitution; because once you put something into the constitution, it is very hard to re-define. It is better to let lawmakers deal with these issues than for us to put them in the constitution.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #9
Amendment #10 – State and Local Government Structure and Operation
Amendment #10 is another bundled amendment, with four separate issues tied together.
•The legislature to provide a state Department of Veterans Affairs
•Create a state Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism
•Require the legislature to convene the regular session on the second Tuesday of January on even-numbered years
•Prohibit counties from abolishing the offices of sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of circuit court, as well as require that they be elective offices.
Supporters say this would guarantee the existence of a Department of Veterans Affairs and it would also make consistency across the state and allow voters to elect officials in vital municipal positions, instead of them being appointed. It has been said that these offices need to be transparent and should be voted on by the people to ensure an official that is elected by the people and not appointed by possible special interest groups.
Opposers say this amendment strips counties of their right to govern and overrides local governments who would otherwise determine their own constitutional offices. It is also noted it adds an unnecessary provision as the Constitution already has the power to set dates during even numbered years. They also point out that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is already the lead agency in coordinating efforts to prevent terrorism, and the Constitution already has authorized the Legislature to create a Department of Veteran Affairs. Many believe these issues should be resolved by the governor and legislature; they don’t belong in a state constitution.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #10
Amendment #11 – Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statues
Another bundled amendment …
•Prohibit foreign-born persons ineligible for citizenship from owning, inheriting, disposing and possessing property
•Would also repeal an obsolete provision stating that a high-speed ground transportation system be developed in Florida
•It would delete a constitutional provision that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of a crime committed prior to the statute's amendment.
Supporters say Florida’s prison population is one of the highest, per capita, in the nation and this repeal would reverse that trend. Florida is the only state in the nation that currently doesn’t allow retro-active use for past crimes, so this would help us catch up with the rest of the nation. And this really has to be done in the constitution, or it cannot be done at all. As far as the bundling, the other two provisions remove obsolete language from the constitution.
Opposers say once a verdict applies to a criminal, it should not be subject to changes in the law over time. They also say Florida incarcerates its citizens at a higher rate than other states because of the proper enforcement of the law.
MY RULING: Vote YES on Amendment #11
Amendment #12 – Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers
This amendment would prohibit public officials from lobbying for compensation during their term in office and for six years after they leave office. It would also prohibit public officials from using their office to benefit personally from the office.
Supporters say this amendment would establish some of the most expansive ethical standards for public servants across the country and public servants should not be allowed to capitalize on their elected office.
Opposers say that the current lawmakers, who also serve as attorneys tied to lobbying firms or lobbyists themselves, would be restricted to find gainful employment. Other opposers find the six-year limitation to be rather excessive. They also argue that passing this amendment would not necessarily solve this issue but just force people to become more creative in their lobbying efforts. The biggest argument however, is that this is a measure that does not need to be inserted in the Florida Constitution and if the legislators want to set guidelines on ethical behavior, they may do so on their own.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #12
Amendment #13 – Ends Dog Racing
This subject has been very controversial for years and now has become a very controversial amendment. If this amendment passes, it would phase out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020.
Supporters of this amendment’s main argument is they say the practice is seen as cruel to the dogs. The main supporters, of this amendment, are the animal activist groups.
Opposers of this amendment say that if this amendment passes it could threaten the livelihood of many hard-working individuals. They also say that if you remove dog racing as an option for people then you are just shifting gambling to something else. Others also say dog racing is a declining business anyway and if you give it time it will probably disappear on its own. There is also opposition that says if the animal rights groups win in dog racing … what is next? Possibly rodeos or livestock shows? In addition, opponents argue that this measure is something that does not belong in the constitution. This measure could be enacted legislatively, or the industry could be further regulated by the legislature.
MY RULING: Vote NO on Amendment #13