A DEMOCRATIC, SOCIALLY-CONSCIOUS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY-CONSCIOUS GUIDE ON HOW TO VOTE ON THE 2024 FLORIDA AMENDMENTS
By Paul Blythe
QUICK VERSION
Vote YES on Amendments 3 and 4.
Why: Because these two amendments were put on the ballot by a broad cross section of the people of Florida. Each proposal independently received the signatures of about 1 million people of all parties from across the state supporting its placement on the ballot.
Vote NO on the rest.
Why: Because these four proposals were put on the ballot by a Legislature with a super majority of Republicans in both chambers, meaning these bills could be passed with only Republican votes. Indeed, three of these four were passed on party-line votes, meaning Republicans overwhelming voted for them while the vast majority of Democrats voted against them. Only one of the four, Amendment 2, which would put the right to fish and hunt in the Florida Constitution, received the unanimous vote of both parties. It was sponsored by Republicans and had the backing of powerful Tallahassee lobbies, while being opposed by environmental groups.
One more important thing
Each proposed amendment needs a YES vote from at least 60 percent of the voters to pass. That’s a high bar and why you should NOT skip these items on your ballot. And while we're at it, the most important of these issues to vote YES on is Amendment 4, because it is the only one about the most basic of human rights – the right of a person to control her own body.
LONG VERSION (With technical details and math)
AMENDMENT 1
PARTISAN ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDS
What’s on the ballot: “Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election and to specify that the amendment only applies to elections held on or after the November 2026 general election. However, partisan primary elections may occur before the 2026 general election for purposes of nominating political party candidates to that office for placement on the 2026 general election ballot.”
Who put it on the ballot? The Legislature’s Republicans. (In the House, 79 Republicans voted for it, 34 Democrats opposed it, and 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat did not vote. In the 40-member Senate, all 29 Republicans voted for it, while all 11 Democrats opposed it.)
What a NO vote would do: Keep the status quo, which is a 1998 constitutional amendment that prohibits partisan primaries and party labels in school board elections. That amendment was put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission and passed by 64 percent of the Florida electorate. It turned school board elections into a general election in August where all candidates were listed without any party designation and all registered voters in a district could vote.
What a YES vote would do: Return school board elections to their pre-1998 partisan primary format, requiring each candidate’s political party to be designated on the ballot and returning the August election to a closed primary format. That would mean that only members of the candidate’s party could vote in the primary as is currently done with other state and county offices. Each party’s winner would then face off in the November general election, when all voters, including independents, could vote. If approved, the partisan school board elections would go into effect in 2026.
Why vote against it: Requiring school board races to be non-partisan is idealism in action. It is the ideal that school boards should be one of those small governments closest to the people because public schools serve the people we all love the most – our children. It is the ideal that elected officials care more about their constituents – the kids, parents and teachers – when their election campaign is grassroots, community-oriented and low-dollar, as non-partisan races traditionally have been.
But when election campaigns are partisan, outside interests and big money intrude, and the elected officials’ principal concerns more easily shift to the forces that helped them gain office. We’ve seen that ugly divisive aspect of partisanship in school board elections ever since Ron DeSantis was elected governor and started ignoring the state constitution by endorsing his Republican slate of school board candidates. We saw how the priority of his preferred candidates was to deliver his political objectives, not to serve the needs of all students equally.
DeSantis, however, won’t be governor after 2026, and this proposed amendment is simply a ruse by the Republican-controlled Legislature to allow them to continue their style of divisive, chaotic government at the most local level even without a Republican governor.
One more thing: Some say it’s too late to avoid politicizing school board races, because DeSantis and Republicans have already poisoned the well with their endorsements and PACs pouring money into school campaigns. They say partisan races would at least provide information to help Democrats identify who to vote for. But that’s just giving Republicans what they want. If anything, let’s elect more Democrats to the Legislature and change the law to make it tougher for the governor to endorse candidates in non-partisan races.
Vote NO on Amendment 1.
***
AMENDMENT 2
RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT
What’s on the ballot: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section of Article IV of the State Constitution.”
Who put it on the ballot? Essentially, the entire Legislature, Republicans and Democrats. (In the House, 116 of the 120 representatives -- 81 Republicans and 35 Democrats -- voted for it; the rest did not vote. In the Senate, 38 of the 40 members – 28 Republicans and 10 Democrats – voted for it vs. 1 Democrat who opposed it; 1 Democrat did not vote.)
What a NO vote would do: Keep the status quo, which is a 2002 state law that established a right to hunt and fish in Florida and said they “should be forever preserved for Floridians.”
What a YES vote would do: Establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida, not just with guns but with traditional means such as bow and arrows and possibly other currently prohibited and cruel methods such as clubs, steel traps and gill nets. Also would establish hunting and fishing as the preferred method of managing and controlling fish and wildlife, as opposed to science-based methods.
Why vote against it: With the current law in place, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish is completely unnecessary.
But this proposal was never really just about preserving that right. It’s actually a maneuver by sport hunting and fishing groups, commercial fishing and marine industries, and Tallahassee’s powerful gun lobby to circumvent wildlife protections and gun safety regulations. It is a sneaky trick to get Florida voters to eliminate restrictions on controversial and cruel hunting and fishing methods, and to give up their right to vote to protect and conserve wildlife in the future.
Other concerning ways it might be used: To justify the expansion of hunting in places, such as locally regulated conservation areas, where hunting is currently not allowed. And to infringe on private property rights if it were to be interpreted to enable hunters to trespass on private property to pursue animals they have already shot.
One more thing: The fact that only one legislator in the entire Legislature – Democratic Rep. Lori Berman from Palm Beach County – voted against putting the measure on the ballot is a good indication that powerful, big-money lobbies, such as the NRA and marine industries, were driving forces behind the bill. Meanwhile, numerous wildlife protection groups are opposed to this amendment. This is an amendment to benefit special interests and does not deserve to be included in the state constitution.
Vote NO on Amendment 2.
***
AMENDMENT 3
ADULT PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA
What’s on the ballot: “Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise; allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms. Provides effective date.”
Who put it on the ballot? 1,033,770 Florida registered voters.
What a NO vote would do: Maintain the status quo, meaning non-medical possession and use of marijuana in Florida would remain a crime. Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be able to continue their current operations, which means they would not be allowed to deal in marijuana products or accessories for non-medical personal use.
What a YES vote would do: Legalize recreational marijuana use in Florida by adults 21 or older, allowing individuals to possess up to 3 ounces of marijuana and authorizing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell and distribute marijuana products and accessories. Also would allow the Florida Legislature to enact additional legislation to license other entities to do what Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers could do with recreational marijuana products and to restrict where people can smoke marijuana.
What a YES vote would NOT do: It would not change federal law or protect users against prosecution for marijuana crimes under federal law.
Why vote for it: Twenty-seven other states have already done it, it appears not to be any more harmful than alcohol is, it will provide the state millions of dollars in tax revenue, and it will provide people jobs. And it appears to be what many Floridians want and have wanted for a long time.
Republican opposition on the grounds that it is a gateway drug appears to be the same unsupported claim that we’ve heard since the Nixon era. But it is true that we really don’t know whether this claim and many others about marijuana are true or not. And that’s the federal government’s fault, because its continued criminalization of marijuana includes restrictive regulations on scientific research about the effects of using the drug.
This one is a tossup for me, but I think the time has come to let adults, not the government, make the decision of use for themselves.
Vote YES on Amendment 3.
***
AMENDMENT 4
AMENDMENT TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH ABORTION
What’s on the ballot: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
Who put it on the ballot? 997,035 Florida registered voters.
What a NO vote would do: A NO vote would leave in place Florida’s ban on abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy (with limited exceptions for the life of the woman, rape or incest). The Florida Legislature passed that law in 2023, just a year after the Legislature passed a previous law that banned most abortions after 15 weeks. Before 2022, abortions in Florida, as in every state, could not be outlawed by the state up to point of fetus viability, the federal limit established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973. With Roe v. Wade, the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester of a pregnancy (about 12-13 weeks) was left solely to the discretion of the woman. In the second trimester a state could regulate abortions in the interest of a woman’s health but could not outlaw abortions. Not until the third trimester could states regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the child in the womb, and even then, exceptions had to be allowed to preserve the life or health of the mother.
What a YES vote would do: Prevent any Florida law from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying or restricting abortion before viability, which generally occurs by the 24th week of pregnancy and is about the end of the second trimester. It also would prohibit any law prohibiting or restricting abortion at any time during the pregnancy when a healthcare provider thinks it is necessary to protect the mother’s health. In other words, it should essentially restore to Florida women the general rights established by Roe v. Wade.
What a YES vote would NOT do: It would not override or change Florida’s constitutional requirement of parental notification for minors seeking abortion. Voters approved the parental notification amendment in 2004.
Why vote for it: When a government takes away a long-held right of the people, the people have a right and duty to take that right back. For 49 years, women in Florida, as in every state of the United States, had a constitutional right to decide whether to have an abortion up to the point of fetus viability. The U.S. Supreme Court effectively transferred that right to the states when it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, and Florida quashed it for women in 2023, when the Legislature outlawed abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, which happens to be about the same time most women first realize they are pregnant. A right to do something before you even know you have to do it is no right at all.
One last thing: This is the most important amendment of the six to vote YES on, because it is an amendment to restore a basic human right that has been stolen from women in Florida – the right to control their own bodies.
Vote YES on Amendment 4.
***
AMENDMENT 5
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE VALUE OF CERTAIN HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS
What’s on the ballot: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions that apply solely to levies other than school district levies and for which every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another person legally or naturally dependent upon the owner is eligible. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2025.”
Who put it on the ballot? Essentially, the Legislature’s Republicans. (In the House, 81 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted for it vs. 29 Democrats who opposed it; 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats did not vote. In the Senate, 25 Republicans voted for it, while 12 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted against.)
What a NO vote would do: Keep the status quo in determining the value of homestead exemptions. Nothing would change in determining how much you pay in property taxes each year or in how much local governments collect in property taxes.
What a YES vote would do: It would increase the value of the part of your homestead exemption that applies only to non-school property taxes, and that increase would be based each year on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – if and only if the CPI increases. If the CPI decreases, your homestead exemption would not change from the previous year.
This affects only $25,000 of the total $50,000 you have in homestead exemptions from property taxes for non-school governments, and it does not affect any of the $25,000 homestead exemption you have from property taxes for public schools.
For example, if the CPI increased at a rate of 3 percent in the first year, the value of this $25,000 portion of your homestead exemptions would increase by 3 percent – to $25,750. And if Palm Beach County’s proposed 2024 property tax rate of $8.5566 per $1,000 taxable value were applied to that, your homestead exemption would cut $220.33 from your Palm Beach County government property tax bill compared to the $213.92 that would be cut under the current law. That means the proposed amendment would save you $6.41 in Palm Beach County government property taxes in the first year.
Keep in mind, the above calculation is only for the county government operating and debt tax rates, library operating and debt tax rates, and fire-rescue tax rate. But you pay property taxes to other local governmental entities including the Health Care District, Children’s Services Council and South Florida Water Management District, as well as other regional taxing districts depending on where you live in the county. So, this homestead-exemption adjustment would net you more than just that $6.41 in savings on your property taxes, but not a lot more. However, the increases presumably would accumulate each year like compound interest, although the details are not clear in the proposed amendment.
While this would mean a savings for homeowners whose primary residence is in Florida, it also would mean less income for local governments in Florida.
But it would not mean any less money for state government or limit the types of taxes that state lawmakers can impose. The only property taxes that state lawmakers help set and depend on are school property taxes, and this adjustment for inflation does not apply to the homestead exemption for school taxes.
Why vote against it: First, it doesn’t amount to a significant savings for an individual, but if you multiply that small amount by the couple of hundred-thousand homesteads there are in Palm Beach County, the effect on local governments would be to reduce tax revenue by millions of dollars. Another objection is it offers tax relief only to homestead owners, who already have several homestead-related exemptions. So, with this amendment, more property tax burden would continue be shifted to other groups such as businesses, renters and second-home owners.
One more thing: This is yet another example of Republican lawmakers taking care of themselves and throwing local governments under the bus. This amendment would not reduce any of the state taxes that lawmakers set or rely on for state revenue. It would affect only local government property taxes.
And one last thing: There is already a better adjustment for inflation on your property taxes in the Florida Constitution. It is the Save Our Homes Amendment passed by voters in 1995, which caps the annual increase in the value of your homestead at 3 percent or the percentage change in the CPI, whichever is less.
So, if your primary residence is in Florida, its taxable value has NOT increased by the full rate of inflation in recent years. In 2022, for example, when the CPI increased by 6.5 percent, the increase in the taxable value of Florida homesteads was limited to 3 percent. The taxable value of your homestead cannot increase by more than 3 percent in any one year.
Vote NO on Amendment 5.
***
AMENDMENT 6
REPEAL OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING REQUIREMENT
What’s on the ballot: “Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution which requires public financing for campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.”
Who put it on the ballot? Essentially, the Legislature’s Republicans. (In the House, 81 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for it, while 29 Democrats voted against it; 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans did not vote. In the Senate, 27 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for it, while 10 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against; 1 Democrat did not vote.)
What a NO vote would do: Keep the status quo, which is a public campaign financing program that allows candidates for governor or Cabinet positions to access public matching funds for contributions made by individual Florida residents who contributed $250 or less. To qualify for the funds, candidates must agree to several conditions, including limiting contributions from their political party to $250,000, agreeing to campaign financing reporting and a post-election financial audit, and limiting their total spending. The spending limit in the governor’s race is $2 per registered voter, which would amount to $27.36 million this year (for 13.68 million registered voters) and the limit for Cabinet races is $1 per registered voter, or $13.68 million this year. The program was created by a law passed in 1986 and Floridians added it to the state constitution in 1998 with 64 percent of the vote.
What a YES vote would do: It would repeal the public campaign financing law and constitutional amendment; end the public campaign financing program; and end campaign spending limits for candidates for governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and commissioner of agriculture.
History: The Legislature has already tried to dismantle this program once. In 2010, it placed an amendment on the ballot that was similar to this year’s, but it received only 52.49 percent of the vote, falling short of the 60 percent required for passage.
Why vote against it: Like non-partisan school board elections, public financing of political campaigns is idealism in government – an attempt to imbue our government with some of the ideals we all pay lip service to: An attempt to give small-dollar donors an equal voice, or at least something closer, to the voice of wealthy donors by subsidizing the smaller givers. An attempt to broaden and diversify the candidate pool by providing candidates who are not wealthy or who don’t have access to private funding a source of money for their campaigns.
This public funding option is not perfect. Candidates taking public funding can still rake in millions of dollars from special interests through political committees, as DeSantis did in 2022, when he accessed $7.3 million in public funding, nearly doubling what Democrat Chalie Crist accessed.
But ending public financing of political campaigns, as Amendment 6 would do, would give moneyed interests even greater influence in state government, much as the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling has done with federal government.
Voting NO on Amendment 6 will help hold the door open to statewide office for those candidates – people of color, blue-collar workers, newly naturalized citizens, the young and others – who otherwise could not afford to run.
It is the Democratic, and the democratic, thing to do.
Vote NO on Amendment 6.
Comments