2024 Constitutional Amendment Voter Guide

OPINION

BY LEN CABRERA

In general, we typically default to voting no on ballot initiatives to amend the Florida Constitution because most issues can and should be addressed through the regular legislative processes.

Amendments to Florida’s constitution require at least 60% approval to pass (Article XI, Section 5(e), changed by ballot initiative in 2006). It should be harder. The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of both houses (or two-thirds of state legislatures) to propose amendments and three-fourths of the states (38 of 50) to ratify them. That is a proper way to signify the importance of a constitution’s role in maintaining consistent governance. The U.S. Constitution has only been amended 27 times in 235 years, while the current Florida constitution has been amended 144 times in 56 years.

Here at Alachua Chronicle, we’re in the minority in believing that it should be harder to amend our state’s constitution. A 2020 ballot initiative to require constitutional amendments to be passed twice failed, with only 47.5% voting in favor of the tougher requirement. In the 2023 legislative session, Rick Roth (R-Palm Beach) and Tom Leek (R-Ormond Beach) introduced CS/HJR 129 to increase the requirement from 60% to 66.67%. The resolution passed in the house 74-35 but was killed in the senate. We’d like to see this provision pass, along with a provision that future ballot initiatives need to have majority support in at least two-thirds of the counties. That way the large population centers can’t dominate the vote, and initiatives must have overwhelmingly wide-spread support throughout the state to change the state constitution.

That said, here’s how we recommend voting on the current amendments and why.

---

Amendment 1. Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
Our recommendation: Yes
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature/House (HJR 31)
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

The amendment changes Article IV, Section 4, paragraph (a) by replacing “nonpartisan” with “partisan.” As far as constitutional amendments go, they don’t get much simpler and more focused than this.

In 1998, ballot amendment 11 changed school board elections from partisan to nonpartisan, so this amendment would just change it back. Some people argue that the partisan elections will make elections more transparent so voters can more easily identify where the candidates stand on issues. Others argue that making the elections partisan will further politicize school boards.

Voters tend to use partisan signals in deciding which way to vote, anyway, and candidates’ supporters in nonpartisan races often publicize the party registration of opposing candidates. Governor DeSantis and the Republican-controlled legislature favor the amendment, so if you tend to agree with them on issues, you’ll probably vote yes.

Another way to consider the amendment is this: has the product of Florida’s public education system improved since the school board elections were made nonpartisan in 1998? If you think yes, then keep things as is and vote no. Otherwise, vote yes.

We agree that more information on the candidates is better, so we recommend voting yes.

---

Amendment 2. Right to Fish and Hunt
Our recommendation: No
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature/House (HJR 1157)
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

The amendment adds Section 28 to Article I (Declaration of Rights) of the state constitution. Other states have similar provisions in their state constitutions, and the resolution to add this amendment passed the legislature nearly unanimously (116-0 in the house; 38-1 in the senate). We’re not lawyers, but we agree with Sen Bobby Powell (D-West Palm Beach), the one dissenter in the senate, who asked why this amendment was needed.

It’s supposed to prevent measures to try to ban hunting and fishing like one that recently failed in Oregon, but we don’t really see how this amendment does much. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission retains authority to regulate hunting and fishing, and they can effectively ban it by limiting permits regardless of this amendment’s intent.

An additional consideration is that making hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife” may have unintended consequences; this provision does not appear in others states’ constitutions, and while we see no harm in declaring a right to fish and hunt, we would prefer a simpler statement to that effect.

We don’t think this amendment does anything other than make some politicians feel good about getting it passed. We recommend voting against it.

---

Amendment 3. Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
Our recommendation: No
Sponsor: Smart & Safe Florida
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

We addressed this amendment in this column. The bottom line: “Amendment 3 is not some libertarian fantasy to decriminalize marijuana. It’s a blatant attempt by politically-connected corporate interests with government licenses to expand their market, protect the barriers to entry, and enact criminal and civil liability protection to ensure massive profits.” Obviously, you should vote no.

---

Amendment 4. Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
Our recommendation: No
Sponsor: Floridians Protecting Freedom
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

This is probably the most contentious amendment on the ballot this year. In fact, it was approved for the ballot by a narrow 4-3 vote from the Florida Supreme Court, with the dissenting justices arguing the ballot summary is misleading. You don’t have to get into the morality of abortion to see that Amendment 4 goes much farther than expanding a right to abortion until viability. The overly broad language could basically allow abortion for convenience all the way up until birth. The requirement for parent or guardian notification would replace a current law that requires parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion.

The current abortion law in Florida is based on the Heartbeat Protection Act (SB 300), which went into effect on May 1, 2024. The law updates Florida Statute 390.0111 (Termination of Pregnancies) to outlaw abortions after 6 weeks with exceptions for saving the mother’s life or a fatal fetal abnormality. Abortions can be performed up to 15 weeks for a pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, or human trafficking. The current law also requires an in-person physician to perform the procedure or dispense drugs to induce an abortion.

Amendment 4 would change the date from 6 (or 15) weeks to “viability,” a term lacking any formal legal or medical definition. Viability is current estimated at 22-25 weeks. However, the bigger issue is the “or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” (emphasis added to highlight the misleading language.)

The current law is very clear to specify exemptions to “save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” and it excludes the mother’s psychological condition. Amendment 4’s language for “the patient’s health” sounds compassionate, but it’s overly broad. It opens the door to any excuse to justify abortion, including mental health or financial health.

Amendment 4 does not define “healthcare provider” or link to a formal statutory definition like 381.026 (Florida Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities), which says “a physician licensed under chapter 458, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, a podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or an advanced practice registered nurse registered under s. 464.0123.” Without a definition, “healthcare provider” could include just about anyone, including dermatologists, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, or even someone working at the intake desk at an abortion clinic.

Taken together, the broad terms “patient’s health” and “healthcare provider” could allow abortion for convenience all the way up until birth, as Governor DeSantis pointed out in his comments against Amendment 4 back in June.

Also, while Amendment 4 requires notification of a minor’s parent or guardian, it’s actually changing current law that requires consent. Florida Statute 390.01114 (Parental Notice of and Consent for Abortion Act) requires “written consent from a parent or legal guardian before performing or inducing the termination of a pregnancy of a minor.” Notification is not the same as consent.

Bottom line: Amendment 4 is a radical overcorrection to the 6-week abortion ban that went into effect earlier this year. The 6-week ban was passed legislatively, and changing it to 15 or 24 weeks or some other date should also be done legislatively. We recommend voting no.

---

Amendment 5. Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
Our recommendation: No (against our personal financial interest)
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature/House (HJR 7017)
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

This amendment will update Article VII, Section 6 (Homestead exemptions) to increase the current $25,000 homestead exemption annually by the consumer price index for the preceding calendar year (if positive).

This amendment is a perfect example of why some things should not be in the constitution. The original Homestead exemption of $5,000 was proposed by Representative Dwight Rogers (D-Fort Lauderdale) in 1933 and added to the state constitution in 1934 (and later incorporated into the current 1968 constitution).

If this had been done by statute rather than a constitutional amendment, it would be easy to adjust for inflation annually or periodically. In fact, it was increased to $10,000 by the legislature in the 1960s without a constitutional amendment. The current $25,000 homestead exemption was enacted by constitutional amendment in 1980. If the original $5,000 exemption were adjusted into 2024 dollars, the exemption would be $117,461 ($25,000 in 1980 is equivalent to $95,508 in 2024).

Whether you start from the 1934 exemption or the 1980 exemption, it’s clear that our legislature hasn’t had much desire to keep things current. In fact, HB727 (Tax Exemption for Disabled Ex-servicemembers) was killed in the state senate in the 2024 legislative session. That law would have increased the additional disabled servicemember exemption from $5,000 to $10,000.

Also, if the point is to keep up with inflation, why is this amendment limited to the standard $25,000 homestead exemption? There are other dollar figures in Article VII, Section 6, specifying additional exemptions, income restrictions, and home value limits for homeowners 65 and over. Why didn’t Amendment 5 simply say, “All dollar figures in Article VII, Section 6 shall be adjusted annually on January 1 of each year for inflation using the percent change in the Consumer Price Index”?

A cynical person might think HJR 7017 was passed to just give politicians in Tallahassee some street cred on reducing taxes without actually reducing taxes – the impact of their generosity (if passed) will be borne by city and county governments that collect property taxes. According to the House of Representatives Staff Final Bill Analysis, “the impact on non-school local government property taxes in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 26 (the first year of implementation) would be approximately -$22.8 million, growing to approximately -$111.8 million in FY 2028-29, assuming current tax rates.”

Of course, local governments won’t actually lose that revenue because they will simply raise millage rates; there is nothing in the constitutional amendment to prevent millage from being adjusted to compensate for the increased homestead exemptions.

If cities and counties do increase rates, those property owners without a homestead exemption will pay a higher burden relative to homesteaded property owners. (In Alachua County, that’s roughly half the properties – 54,496 homestead exemptions out of 108,042 real property parcels, according to the Alachua County Property Appraiser’s office.) Of course, that’s great for property owners with homestead exemptions, but landlords and businesses will make up the difference in higher taxes that will increase rents.

In 1850, Frederic Bastiat warned, “As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it–then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”

In other words, once the law goes beyond the protection of life, liberty, and property, it will become legalized plunder, at which point all involvement in government is to benefit from plunder or defend against it. Either way, society starts to crumble from the perversion of the law.

That may sound extreme, but it was a common idea at our state’s founding. The original 1838 Florida constitution (Article VIII, Section 1) said “The General Assembly shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, to be general throughout the State.” Of course, shortly after that, this ideal was tainted by all sorts of exemptions for special interests.

So, despite personally benefiting from increasing the homestead exemption, we recommend voting no on Amendment 5. This may shock our readers (and detractors) who think we’re party-line Republicans. We like the idea of reducing property taxes, but this amendment doesn’t guarantee taxes will go down and will likely increase property taxes for half of Alachua County residents.

---

Amendment 6. Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
Our recommendation: Yes
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature/Senate (SJR 1114)
Full text here.
Ballot summary:

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.

This amendment will repeal Article VI, Section 7:

Campaign spending limits and funding of campaigns for elective state-wide office.—It is the policy of this state to provide for state-wide elections in which all qualified candidates may compete effectively. A method of public financing for campaigns for state-wide office shall be established by law. Spending limits shall be established for such campaigns for candidates who use public funds in their campaigns. The legislature shall provide funding for this provision. General law implementing this paragraph shall be at least as protective of effective competition by a candidate who uses public funds as the general law in effect on January 1, 1998.

There was an attempt to pass a similar amendment in 2010, but it got just over 52% support, so it didn’t reach the 60% threshold to pass.

Proponents claim removing public financing will save taxpayer money. Those against the amendment say it may hurt underfunded candidates. The latter seem to agree with the legislative intent according to Florida Statute 106.31, which also claims public campaign financing makes “candidates more responsive to the voters of the State of Florida and as insulated as possible from special interest groups.” Try not to laugh.

The Florida Division of Elections explains the public campaign finance program here. From that webpage you can also see the total funds distributed over the last six elections cycles. In 2022, the state contributed over $13 million to seven candidates. In 2018, the total was $9.8 million to 10 candidates.

This funding is coming from taxpayers because every reference in statutes to the Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund says the trust fund expired, effective November 4, 1996. Some of the money comes from candidate filing fees and assessments, but that’s just a very small portion.

The theory that public funding helps smaller candidates without access to wealthy patrons or political action committees is fantasy. At best it allows those with just enough clout to petition or buy their way onto the ballot to take taxpayer money (after meeting contribution minimums). If those candidates could raise the required minimum and were popular enough to win, they’d be popular enough to raise enough money to campaign. In reality, records show that public funding just bankrolls established candidates, so we recommend voting yes on Amendment 6 to save taxpayers some money.