The Florida Constitutional Amendments – My Take

What a mess the ballot is this year with some of the most ridiculous and some of the most dangerous amendments. In the end, I voted Yes on Number 4, and No on all the rest. Many of you may disagree, but at least consider my logic.

Amendment 1. This amendment would increase the current typical $50,000 homestead exemption — except for school taxes — by another $25,000 for homes valued above $125,000, pro-rated for any home assessed at $100,000 or more. This would increase taxes on businesses and renters, as someone has to make up the shortfall,  and it unfairly puts the burden on city and county governments to explain why tax rates have to go up just to keep the current level of services. Voting No

Amendment 2. The taxable value of non-homestead properties currently cannot rise by more than 10 percent a year, a constitutional cap that is set to expire on Jan. 1. This measure would make that cap permanent. This is a feel-good one and might seem like a good idea, but the measure denies local governments the effect of rising property values. It is estimated that amendments 1 and 2 together would cost local governments $1.3 billion a year. This has to do with local taxes, so it should be decided on the local level, and if voters don’t like what their Commissioners do, they can vote them out. To be the party of smaller local government and home-rule, Republicans sure like taking over decisions making on the local level. Voting No

Amendment 3. I don’t gamble. I went with Lay once and played (for me, a very short-lived) poker tournament at the Dog Track on Gandy. I suppose in some ways I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but limits any expansion of casino gambling only if voters — and only voters — proposed a constitutional amendment, which would then, of course, have to pass. There are two other ways that Amendments can be put on the ballot, and this undercuts that process making it a dangerous precedent, so on Amendment 3, it’s No.

Amendment 4 This Amendment would require the automatic restoration of voting rights for felons who have completed all the requirements of their sentence, including serving prison time and paying victim restitution. Passing this constitutional amendment, which does not apply to anyone convicted of murder or felony sex crimes, would end the wait for thousands of people who have applied for clemency through an antiquated system that serves no purpose but to perpetually punish them. I think, if you can’t regain your voting rights, then you shouldn’t have to pay tax. We fought a war over this a few years back if you recall, and wound up founding a new nation as a result. This one is a YES

Amendment 5. This is another of the feel-good measures. Who wants to pay more taxes, but we seem to be developing this idea that things like infrastructure, first responders, transportation, all will just magically get taken care with money that we don’t have to pay in. Sorry for the wake-up call folks, but we have to all chip in and pay for this stuff. This measure would make it harder for future legislatures to raise or impose taxes by requiring a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. If there’s ever an emergency or big shifts in the economic situation, we’re going to need to raise taxes, and this just makes that all but impossible. 5 is a No

The next seven amendments came from that cluster-fuck political confabulation that was the Constitution Revision Commission. The point of that is that every 20 years a group can take a hard look at societal changes, and make decisions to put forward important changes to the bigger issues we face. This bunch of Rick Scott Republican clowns wasted this opportunity by putting forward some of the pithiest and unimportant bullshit one can imagine, and they all should be rejected.

Amendment 6. This measure includes three separate issues — raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, banning courts from deferring to a state agency’s expertise on interpreting a law or rule, and a series of rights for crime victims. These are each big issues that should be considered on their own merits, not jumbled into one proposal. This was typical of this commission, trying to hide some clearly cloaked issues behind a few feel-good issues. Who doesn’t think victims should have rights after all. As many have noted though, this should stand on its own merit, and we have to be careful that victim rights never outweigh the rights of the accused. We often have a dangerous assumption in this country that the accused is automatically guilty. The innocence project should have dispelled that belief. So, it’s a No, even on this feel-good amendment.

Amendment 7. This is another amendment that cobbles together three issues. The main issue here deals with university fees. By requiring a supermajority vote to raise fees, it becomes nearly impossible to raise them, thus continuing the work of Republicans to dismantle public education in Florida.  It would require that death benefits are paid out to first responders killed in the line of duty but that’s already in the law, and require the state to waive “certain educational expenses” for the post-high school education of their children. It puts the Florida College System in the Constitution with the K-12 and State University system. The latter two aren’t really bad things, so let the legislature propose them as two amendments in the next election, as should have been done this time. Another No

Amendment 9. Someone was obviously vaping something when they came up with this ditty. It bans off-shore oil drilling in waters controlled by Florida AND prohibits vaping at indoor workplaces. I’m in favor of both of these, but I’m voting No. First off, that whole bullshit about vaping is one of the main “trivial-pursuit” things the Constitution Revision Commission wasted their time on. It does not belong in the Constitution. I think neither does the off-shore drilling ban. I think both can be accomplished with a law, but if we want it in the Constitution, let’s not sneak it in under a vapor cloud. This is No

Amendment 10. This is another of those “Small-Government-Republicans” wanting to control every aspect of government throughout the state. This amendment requires every county to elect rather than appoint its sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of courts — whether it wanted to or not. Those already are elected offices in most counties, but the choice should be left to voters in each county, not the state. Miami-Dade County, for example, appoints its sheriff. As the Tampa Bay Times notes, “Other parts of the amendment are uncontroversial but also unnecessary. It would establish a counterterrorism office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and add to the Constitution a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs. It would make permanent the Legislature’s recent practice of beginning sessions in even-numbered years in January, rather than March. All of those elements either already are or can be handled by state law and don’t need to be enshrined in the Constitution.” So this one is also a No.

Amendment 11. Another mishmash of unrelated and largely unnecessary stuff. The big issue here would allow lawmakers to make changes to criminal law retroactive. Gun Rights groups are pushing this one because they hope it would allow the expanded “stand your ground law” to be applied retroactively. That’s bad enough, but consider this, it could mean you did something today that was perfectly legal today, but 5 years from now the legislature could make it illegal, and the cops could show up on your doorstep to arrest you for that thing you did legally five years ago. Think that’s a good idea? Some other elements of the law are there to clean up some things that should be cleaned up, but the application of criminal laws retroactively ought to be a huge non-starter. So yet another No 

Amendment 12. This amendment would prevent the governor, Cabinet members, agency heads, state lawmakers and local elected officials from getting paid to lobby their former colleagues for six years after leaving office. Judges would also be banned from lobbying the Legislature or executive branch for six years. This one I’m “iffy” on. It is a way to help stop the revolving door, but six years is a pretty long time and might prevent some qualified candidates from running. Also, there’s no flexibility left if it goes into the Constitution, so I think this is better handled by law. So let’s say No on this one also.

Amendment 13. The proposal would outlaw betting on greyhound racing by the end of 2020, though it would allow tracks to continue some other pari-mutuel offerings. Another one that is easy to use to appeal to our love of dogs. I watched a discussion of it on Bay News 9 the other night, and a lady that fosters Grey Hounds complained they showed up at her place with sores and flea infestations. Well, that has nothing to do with the racing. Cruelty to animals is already illegal in Florida, so if that’s the issue you want to address, then report these to Animal Control and demand they follow-up. That’s how to handle this issue. As for them living in kennels, so do hunting dogs and lots of other animals. Again, if that’s the issue, it’s not just about racing. Also, if this were really about the dogs, it would include a provision to end para-mutual betting on dog races taking place out of state, and it does not. If there are issues, the issues are not about racing dogs, but about their treatment, and we have laws to address that, so this doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Also, it is written far more broadly than just greyhound racing and could be used to end horse racing and other similar activities in Florida. It doesn’t belong in the Constitution, so my vote is No.