That’s what the Florida state legislature has served up for the public’s degustation on the ballot this November. Some of these proposed amendments to the Florida State Constitution could seriously damage the state for years to come. Others are pretty naked attempts to whip up the Republican base and get them to the polls in November.
Below I offer you links to the full text of the Amendments, and grade them on a 10 point scale for (Ir)Rationality, Evil, and Pandering. Points are bad.
Florida Amendment 1 – Health Care Services is a meaningless gesture of attempted state nullification of the mandate rule found in the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). But if the ACA were ever repealed, the amendment would prohibit Florida from enacting Romneycare here.
- (Ir)Rationality: 10. It doesn’t do anything. So long as the federal ACA is on the books, Amendment 1 is null and void due to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
- Evil: 7. It’s against universal health care, a position which is certainly evil, but Amendment 1 doesn’t rate a 10 because it doesn’t actually do anything for now. Then again, Amendment 1 does have a small residual possibility of doing harm in the unlikely events that (1) the ACA is in fact repealed and (2) the state of Florida decides to copy Romneycare from Massachusetts, or do a state ACA, which are in fact more or less the same thing.
- Pandering: 10. As this amendment won’t actually change anything, it amounts to a tremendous waste of effort and state money; this is nothing less than an abuse of the constitutional amendment process in the hopes of firing up the base in a swing state.
Florida Amendment 2 – Veterans Disabled Due To Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount This amendment increases the homestead exemption for disabled veterans.
- (Ir)Rationality: 4. The state Constitution is a poor mechanism for this sort of fine-grained tax policy.
- Evil: 2. These may be worthy beneficiaries, but cluttering up the Constitution with a relatively small tax policy aimed at maybe tens of thousands of people at most in a state as big as Florida is not a good idea. Also other disabled people might be equally worthy.
- Pandering: 7. If the GOP legislative majority and GOP governor want to help disabled veterans, why not do it via legislation not involving the homestead exemption — which would be quicker and surer? Because this is so much more visible?
Florida Amendment 3 – State Government Revenue Limitation. This is a ‘starve the beast‘ amendment targeted at the state budget. It stops the Florida budget from growing faster than population increases plus inflation — regardless of what our needs might be, and working from the current severely deflated spending base.
Florida Amendment 4 – Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction For Nonhomestead Assessment Increases; Delay Of Scheduled Repeal. This is another ‘starve the beast’ amendment, but targeted at local governments. This one cuts the rate at which assessments on real property can increase from the current cap of 10% per year to 5% per year. It also gives a bonus homestead exemption to so-called first-time home buyers but actually defines the group more broadly to include anyone who hasn’t owned a homestead property in Florida during the last three years. And there are other complex provisions designed to keep ratable value from rising to reflect the true value of homes. Florida Trend says Amendment 4 would cost local governments up to $600 million per year, money that in my opinion they would have no realistic hope of replacing. Which is undoubtedly the point. There is of course nothing in here about what should be cut, what will have to be cut, or alternate revenue sources.
- (Ir)Rationality: 10. This is much more about killing local government than about helping homeowners. And even as a homeowner relief bill it’s not good policy: Annual 10% increases on the taxable value of a home may sound like a lot, but in fact it is only fair: there are many homes whose rateable value greatly lags the market value because they haven’t been sold in a long time. The effect of further shrinking the cap is to worsen an existing problem: two identical homes will be taxed at grossly different rates if one of them was recently purchased. That disparity means that the millage rate has to be higher than it otherwise would be, in order to make up the lost revenue. The disparity also depresses the market for homes, since taxes on new sales are so much higher than staying-in-place rates. Blocking increases in the assessed value of homes may help elderly people on fixed incomes, but it does so inefficiently — in part because the greatest benefits go to rich people, who have the most valuable, and likely to appreciate, homes! — at the expense of everyone else, especially young first-time buyers. There are far more efficient ways to help seniors on fixed incomes keep their homes. Like Amendment 11, for example.
- Evil: 10. Say goodbye to local services. Sell off the public libraries. Worry about police, fire, trash. This will also hurt schools, already suffering from budget cuts, but no worries — Florida will give you vouchers for religious schools if Amendment 8 passes.
- Pandering: 10. Who doesn’t like the sound of “property tax limitations”?
Florida Amendment 5 – State Courts. This is a mix of good and bad, with the bad greatly predominating. It gives the Senate the power to confirm Gubernatorial appointments to the Florida Supreme Court (I’d say that’s good, however the chips may fall). But it also gives the legislature the power to repeal court rules by a simple majority instead of the current two thirds (I’d say that’s bad). It prevents the Supreme Court from re-adopting a rule rejected twice by the legislature (I can see both sides of this, but on balance don’t think I like it). It changes the way the legislature can tinker with the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s rules to increase legislative power (clearly bad). Makes legislative witch hunts against Justices easier by increasing the House Speaker’s access to the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s files (very bad).
- (Ir)Rationality: 4. There’s an evil logic at work here, but many of the changes other than the last one can be defended as increasing popular control (via the legislature) over the judiciary. Unlike most academics, I’m not against that. I do think, however, that the fine-grained level of the proposed intrusions is bad for the courts and bad for the public.
- Evil: 8. What this is really about is intimidating Justices, and reducing access to courts for regular people.
- Pandering: 2. This will read to most voters as technical. I don’t think this is a hot button issue for most people other than insurance company lawyers and the most ardent right-to-life voters.
Florida Amendment 6 – Prohibition On Public Funding Of Abortions; Construction Of Abortion Rights. There is at present no public funding of abortions, so this is another amendment whose main feature doesn’t actually change anything. This amendment would, however, entrench current policy against future popular majorities. Worse, by exempting abortions from the Florida Constitution’s privacy clause, the amendment would allow the legislature to enact a parental consent law twice held unconstitutional by the the Florida Supreme Court.
- (Ir)Rationality: 0. Even though part of this is about entrenching a policy that doesn’t seem likely to change, it’s hard to call this amendment irrational since at least the anti-privacy part does have a real effect, one that could not be achieved without a constitutional amendment.
- Evil: 10. Another attack on women’s rights, with extra added attacks on women’s privacy.
- Pandering: 10. Surely the biggest get-out-the-vote amendment on the ballot, driven by a headline “Prohibition On Public Funding Of Abortions” which is about the part of the amendment that doesn’t actually change anything (at present).
Florida Amendment 7 – There is no longer an Amendment 7, as it fell by the wayside, making it feel like one of the best of the proposed Constitutional Amendments simply by virtue of not being on the ballot.
- (Ir)Rationality: 1. One point for using up a number doing nothing.
- Evil: 0.
- Pandering: 0.
Florida Amendment 8 – Religious Freedom. The key words here are “deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” In other words, let’s undermine the separation between church and state — in particular let’s subsidize religious schools. (Will anyone campaign against this by pointing out that the state will have to offer subsidies to Islamic schools — Madrassas! — too? Probably not.)
- (Ir)Rationality: 5. The First Amendment to the US Constitution doesn’t prevent vouchers that parents can spend for religious schooling. This amendment to the Florida constitution would smooth the way towards introducing such a voucher system in Florida.
- Evil: 8. This is part of the campaign against public education. The more middle class parents can be encouraged to leave the public schools, the easier it will be to starve them too. Vouchers do some good for poor families that want a religious option, but they also work as a subsidy to people who do not need the subsidy. More generally, I don’t think we win by eroding the church/state divide.
- Pandering: 10. “Religious Freedom” sounds good, doesn’t it? We’re all for that. I’m actually surprised they got away with calling it that, given that the amendment is really about allowing state subsidies to religious institutions.
Florida Amendment 9 – Homestead Property Tax Exemption For Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder. Much like Amendment 2: with a somewhat larger but still arbitrary class of beneficiaries.
- (Ir)Rationality: 4. See Amendment 2.
- Evil: 2. See Amendment 2.
- Pandering: 8. Slightly more pandering than Amendment 2, since it is about widows (what about orphans, darn it?).
Florida Amendment 10 – Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption. This would prevent counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments from taxing “tangible personal property” with a total assessed value over $25,000 but less than $50,000. This is a tax break for small businesses that are required to pay local taxes on computers and other equipment. Florida Trend says about 150,000 businesses would benefit from doubling the current $25K cap, and local governments would lose $20+ million per year.
- (Ir)Rationality: 1. Small change.
- Evil: 2. Small change.
- Pandering: 5. I bet some businesses will be happier about saving on the paperwork than the $133 average they will save per firm. Perhaps some low-information voters will think this is about taxing them for their boats or expensive cars?
Florida Amendment 11 – Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency On Property; Equal To Assessed Value. This one would allow the Legislature to “allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.”
- (Ir)Rationality: 0. This one actually makes some sense. And the cost is very small: $9 million or so per year.
- Evil: 0
- Pandering: 0
Florida Amendment 12 – Appointment Of Student Body President To Board Of Governors Of The State University System. Currently students at FSU are cut out from participating in the selection of the student member of the Board of Governors of Florida’s State University System because FSU isn’t a member of the Florida Student Association, whose president has served ex offico. This amendment fixes the FSU problem, but at the price of cutting out the current intermediary, the Florida Student Association, entirely. Instead, the Board of Governors will have to set up a new body to serve as the intermediary that picks the student representative. While enfranchising FSU seems like a no-brainer, neither the prospect of duplication of functions nor the prospect of a standalone body whose sole function is to elect one of its own to be the Board member is particularly appealing. I suspect this will not enhance student representation.
- (Ir)Rationality: 3. A lousy solution to a real problem.
- Evil: 2. Surely there was a better way to solve this?
- Pandering: 0. Whatever you think of the solution, it is a real problem.
