There are six proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot this year. Two–Amendments 3 and 4–are a really big deal and deserve your support despite the highly misleading campaign against them. Three others–Amendments 1, 2 and 6–are well worth voting against for their subtle negative qualities. Amendments 5 is small beer, but at worst harmless and maybe helpful.
Amendment 1
Amendment 1 would change School Board races from their current formally non-partisan structure to an overtly partisan one. The downside here is that candidates would be selected via partisan primaries, which recent experience suggests tends to push candidates towards partisan extremes. Especially in the current moment, in which forces are trying to hijack school boards in service of MAGA-style culture wars, I don’t see how this does us any good. Again, my claim is not that one system is inherently more representative; rather it’s that School Board elections don’t need to be any more partisan than they already are. Primary supporters of Amendment 1 include the notorious book-banning librarian-witch-hunters known as ‘Moms for Liberty’. Fortunately, polls suggest this one is doomed. Vote NO on Amendment 1. (Line 251)
Amendment 2
Amendment 2 sounds innocuous. It probably isn’t. It says in part that it “preserves forever the right to 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.” The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s authority is explicitly preserved–but not that of environmental agencies.
Ostensibly designed to protect the right to hunt and fish, the amendment is worded in a way that an activist state Supreme Court (we have one, in case you had not heard) could use this measure to block various conservation and environmental programs. Vote NO on Amendment 2. (Line 253)
Amendment 3
Amendment 3 would legalize possession of small amount of marijuana–under state law. Federal law criminalizing possession would remain in place. Personally I think the world probably would be a better place if we had less drinking and smoking. But that doesn’t mean they should be crimes. And I think we’d be much better off if we took the anti-pot laws off the books. At present we have managed the odd feat of creating contempt for the law by allowing it to be under-enforced and indeed routinely ignored while at the same time creating more contempt for the law by allowing it to be enforced in a racial (and class-based) manner.
There is a plausible issue as to whether this amendment will allow the legislature to permit people to grow their own or if it might entrench the cannabis dispensary industry. I’m not sure. But even if it does that, this is a step forward. Vote YES on Amendment 3. (Line 254)
Amendment 4
This is the big one. Amendment 4 would carve out a right to abortion in Florida up until viability (no, no post-birth infanticide, thank you very much).
The amount of lying and dirty trickery and sheer illegality deployed against Amendment 4 is enough to make you sick. There’s a really slick commercial on TV in which a woman claims to be pro-choice but says she’s voting against Amendment 4 because it would give her underage daughter an independent right to control her body. In fact, whatever the merits of that stance, nothing in Amendment 4 undermines parental rights.
Meanwhile Governor DeSantis has been pulling out all the stops to undermine the democratic process. He’s committed at least $16 million of public money to buy ads attacking Amendment 4 as bad for public health, even though the idea of public money being used to influence the democratic amendment of the sate constitution is deeply unsavory. And he–or his minions–have caused letters threatening criminal prosecution to TV stations running a particularly effective pro-4 TV commercial. (See TPM, Ex-Health Dept Lawyer Says DeSantis’ Office Directed Him To Send Letters Threatening TV Stations.) This act is clearly illegal, and last week a federal court granted a temporary restraining order blocking the DeSantis administration “from taking any further actions to coerce, threaten, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to television stations, broadcasters, or other parties for airing” the ads.
DeSantis has no shame. But it could work: although polls are clear that a majority will support Amendment 4 it’s not looking good for it to get the 60% approval needed to be adopted.
Failure of Amendment 4 would leave current six-week abortion ban in place–one of the strictest in the U.S. (most women don’t even know they are pregnant by the time the ban takes effect.) Women will die. Vote YES on Amendment 4. (Line 256)
Amendment 5
Florida home owner-occupiers get a homestead exemption of $25,000 from all property taxes and another $25,000 ex emption on the value of property between $50,000 and $75,000, except on taxes levied for schools. Amendment 5 would index that second $25,000 exemption to the rate of inflation. On balance this seems fine, although because there is a cap on the annual rate of increase in property taxes, it’s not actually the case that large numbers of people are being priced out of their homes by increases in property tax. (Tax rates get re-adjusted if a home is sold.) The downside of an inflation adjustment is that localities collect a bit less tax needed to keep up with inflation, but they can adjust the millage rate if they need to. This one is going to pass however you vote, but I suppose I will go along with the herd and vote YES on Amendment 5. (Line 258)
Amendment 6
Amendment 6 would repeal a previous constitutional amendment allowing taxpayer money to provide matching funds to candidates running for top state offices, including governor. The program is far from perfect–Rick Scott gets to spend what he likes from his ill-gotten gains, and that’s not matched–but it’s better than nothing.
A yes vote on 6 s a vote to further entrench the role of big money in campaign finance. No thanks. Vote NO on Amendment 6. (Line 261)
Previously:
