2024 Florida Constitutional Amendments Analysis

Courtesy and in Cooperation With The James Madison Institute.  

AMENDMENT 1
Establishing School Board Elections as Partisan

“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.” A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote would allow parties to nominate their own candidates for these elections and permit candidates to have their political affiliation listed on the ballot.

A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote would keep in place the Florida constitutional requirement that school board election candidates must remain nonpartisan and cannot run under a political party.

Pros: Supporters of this amendment argue that voters are entitled to as much
information about their candidates as possible and that the measure would increase
transparency for voters.

Cons: Opponents argue that school boards (local government bodies that oversee public
school funding and management) should remain as apolitical as possible.
Constitutional Merit: This measure is not a reform that can be addressed by the State Legislature and thus requires a constitutional ballot initiative in order to be
implemented.

In Sum: This amendment would amend the Florida Constitution and would require
candidates to run under a specific party affiliation.

The Conservative Party does not support this amendment as written as it only allows the TWO MAJOR parties to hold these offices: And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE NO!

AMENDMENT 2
Establishing a State Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish Ballot Language: “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 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution.”

How the Amendment Reached the Ballot: Florida State Legislature
What Your Vote Means

A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Florida State Constitution. A state constitutional right to hunt or fish would make it harder for legislators to create laws that would ban or restrict various forms of hunting or fishing.
A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote means that the state legislature can more easily place restrictions on Floridians’ hunting and fishing activities. Such restrictions would likely be part of an effort to conserve various wildlife species or areas.

Pros: A right to hunt or fish would protect individuals’ rights to gaming and sporting how they wish (in line with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s authority) and enshrine these activities, which play an important role in the traditions and economics of the state.

Cons: In rejecting this amendment, it would remain easier for the state government to make regulations restricting hunting and fishing of various species that may be threatened by excessive fishing and hunting, either commercial or recreational.

Constitutional Merit: This measure is not a reform that can be addressed by the State Legislature and thus requires a constitutional ballot initiative in order to be implemented.
In Sum: While this initiative may more formally enshrine for Floridians the right to hunt and fish, the exercise of that right and the language specifying that hunting and fishing would be the “preferred means” for wildlife management make this vote a question of conservation methods versus individual rights. And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE NO

AMENDMENT 3
Recreational Marijuana Legalization Ballot Language: “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.”

How the Amendment Reached the Ballot: Citizen-Initiated
What Your Vote Means A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote would legalize marijuana consumption in the state of Florida for non-medical purposes, including recreation. This legalization enables

personal consumption and private cultivation of marijuana for sale, requiring a state license to do so. It allows those 21 and older to purchase and consume cannabis without a doctor’s
recommendation. A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote retains the current marijuana law for the state, which allows for its consumption and sale for medical purposes only.
Pros: Marijuana businesses and increased sales from a new recreational market would
significantly add to tax revenues. Such revenues could be used to fund a variety of
other initiatives that benefit Floridians.

Cons: Recreational marijuana will reduce overall productivity in the classroom and workplace and that it will put Florida law at odds with federal law. Legalizing marijuana
could lead to greater drug abuse in Florida, exacerbating the public costs of drug-related
problems.

Constitutional Merit: This measure can be enacted in statute by the Florida Legislature. It does not require a constitutional amendment to address.

In Sum: While recreational legalization could create substantial tax benefits, the cost should be weighed against the possible public health problems (and costs) such a measure may exacerbate. And with all of blue states examples of preceding legalization enforcing the summation that the gains do not outweigh the means. And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE NO

AMENDMENT 4
Right to Abortion Ballot Language: “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.”
How the Amendment Reached the Ballot: Citizen-Initiated

What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote would legalize abortion in the state of Florida before the period of fetal viability. Fetal viability, or when a baby is estimated to be able to survive outside of the mother’s uterus, is generally assumed among health professionals
to be around 24 weeks into pregnancy. However, because the ballot language does not clearly define when fetal viability is, it is open for interpretation and legal ambiguity. A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote would keep in place the state’s current abortion law, which sets abortion as legal only within the first six weeks of a pregnancy.

Pro: Supporters argue that such a ballot measure is crucial to guarantee Floridians’ right to an abortion. Limited abortion access is currently offered to Floridians, but many supporters of this amendment see its passage as a way to expand and protect that right.

Con: Opponents of the measure argue that it is not necessary to enshrine any right to abortion into the state constitution since the state legislature already has the ability to vote and regulate the procedure, without the necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Additionally, the point of fetal viability varies by patient, likely setting the groundwork for
future controversy. Further, this amendment would also allow abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health, as determined by a health care provider, without any restriction
on when that determination could occur.

Constitutional Merit: This measure can be enacted in statute by the Florida Legislature. It does not require a constitutional amendment to change current law.

In Sum: If the measure passes, it would overturn Florida’s six-week abortion ban and replace it with legalized abortions up until fetal viability or to protect a patient’s health, neither of which are defined in the ballot language. The Conservative Party of Florida like our national party supports Life Beginning at Conception and this would enshrine infanticide into law. And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE HELL NO!

AMENDMENT 5 Homestead Exemption Inflation Adjustment
Ballot Language: “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.”

How the Amendment Reached the Ballot: Florida State Legislature
What Your Vote Means:

A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote supports adding an inflation adjustment to the current homestead tax exemption. Under the measure, assessments would be indexed to the percent change in the Consumer Price Index. For example, if the rate of inflation is 8 percent, it would increase the value of the exemption from $25,000 to $27,000.
A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote supports keeping the current homestead tax exemption regardless of inflation.

This means that taxes will automatically rise as property values rise with inflation.
Pro: While property values continue to increase and homeowners pay more in property taxes, supporters argue that this measure will give homeowners relief on their taxes by adjusting for inflation.

Con: Opponents of this measure highlight its negative impact on tax revenues for local
governments.

Constitutional Merit: This measure is not a reform that can be addressed by the State Legislature and thus requires a constitutional ballot initiative in order to be implemented.
In Sum: The current homestead tax exemption structure for primary residences is not adjusted for inflation. An inflation adjustment would eliminate automatic tax increases going towards local governments and would require local officials to vote to increase taxes going forward. And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE NO

AMENDMENT 6
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Ballot Language: “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.”
How the Amendment Reached the Ballot: Florida State Legislature.

What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote would repeal the provision of the Florida Constitution that provides public funds to candidates for statewide offices (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer, Commissioner of Agriculture).

A NO vote on this amendment: A no vote would keep in place public financing for statewide candidates.

Pro: Supporters of this measure argue that those running for statewide office should not be entitled to taxpayer money for election purposes, and that getting rid of public campaign financing will lower taxes for Floridians and allocate general revenue funds on other important issues within the state.

Con: Opponents contend that by giving money to candidates that may not already have money or the capacity to raise sufficient funds, the measure can effectively level the playing field for aspiring officeholders that lack political and financial connections.
Constitutional Merit: This measure is not a reform that can be addressed by the State Legislature and thus requires a constitutional ballot initiative in order to be implemented.
In Sum: Voters will get to decide whether public campaign funds should be available for those running for statewide office or if candidates should no longer be able to spend
taxpayer dollars in campaigning. This will open up the already demolished floodgates for non disclosed and legally dubious campaign funding and fund raising. And the Constitution is not a living document to be changed for light and trivial means! VOTE NO

2020 Florida Constitutional Amendments Analysis

Courtesy and in Cooperation With The James Madison Institute.                                              

AMENDMENT 1
Citizen Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections:
Ballot Language: “This amendment provides that only United States Citizens who are at least eighteen years of age, permanent residents of Florida, and registered to vote, as provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in a Florida election.”
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this amendment: Limit voting in Florida elections to only United States citizens who are at least eighteen years old, permanent Florida residents, and registered to vote in the state.
A NO vote on this amendment: Would keep the current language in the Florida Constitution that every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years old, a permanent resident of the state, and registered to vote in the state can vote.
Pros: Clear language that defines who can and cannot vote in Florida elections.
Cons: Opponents of the measure would contend that neither the State of Florida nor any counties in the state currently allow non-citizens to vote.  

In Sum: This amendment would make it clear who can and cannot vote in elections throughout the State of Florida. The effect of this measure would be the change of one word in the constitution. Supporters believe that this change is necessary to draw a firm line on who can vote, while those who oppose the measure believe that the constitution is clear enough, as is, on who can vote: YES

AMENDMENT 2
Raising Florida’s Minimum Wage:
Ballot Language: “Raises minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective September 30th, 2021. Each September 30th thereafter, minimum wage shall increase by $1.00 per hour until the minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. From that point forward, future minimum wage increases shall revert to being adjusted annually for inflation starting September 30th, 2027.” Amendment 2, the state minimum wage would increase each year as follows:
NEW MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR
EFFECTIVE DATE OF INCREASE:
$10.00 $1.46 September 30, 2021
$11.00 $1.00 September 30, 2022
$12.00 $1.00 September 30, 2023
$13.00 $1.00 September 30, 2024
$14.00 $1.00 September 30, 2025
$15.00 $1.00 September 30, 2026
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote would increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2026, with a $1.46 increase in 2021 to $10. The tipped minimum wage would also increase to $12 an hour by 2026.
A NO vote would keep the current $8.56 minimum wage in place, while continuing to increase with inflation.
Pros: Raise the wages of lower-wage workers Stimulate growth in lower wage
workers’ communities Reduce lower-wage workers’ dependence on public assistance.
Cons: Any attempt by government to set a minimum wage would result in greater unemployment, particularly in communities more in need of help. Vast majority of those in minimum wage jobs are youth, who are using this as a first opportunity for work. Raising the minimum wage would lock them out of jobs. Higher wages mean higher costs – and
consumers ultimately pay that increase. Companies will be more likely to increase automation where possible and eliminate certain low-wage jobs altogether. Massive layoffs of lower-wage workers who are the same people that this measure is designed to help.

In Sum: Cannot figure out why this is Not a good thing you should not be voting: NO

AMENDMENT 3
All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet:
Ballot Language: “Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law.
Effective January 1, 2024.”
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote would make primaries in the State of Florida open to all candidates, with the top two advancing to a runoff in the general election, regardless of party.
A NO vote would keep the current primary system in which each party nominates a candidate for the general election.
Pros: Open primaries would allow independent voters (25%+ of all voters) to take part in the candidate selection process. Would allow more choices to all voters as there are typically more candidates in open primaries. Let more voters’ voices to be heard and keep political party power brokers from being able to hand-pick a party nominee.
Cons: Would create a government regulation needlessly impacting private organizations. Individual members of a political party should be the ones deciding who their candidate for office is. “Crossover” voting—where someone who is registered with one party votes for a candidate in another party, selecting a candidate they feel can be beaten more easily,
or one that is closer to the center of the political spectrum and may not represent the full beliefs of the party to which they belong. Would open the primary system up to manipulation. If there was tampering by one of the major parties, it would shake Floridians’ trust in the electoral process. 

In Sum: The independents can register as party member then disenroll with plenty of time between primary and general election seasons: NO

AMENDMENT 4
Voter Approval of Constitutional Amendments:
Ballot Language: “Requires all proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections, instead of one, in order to take effect. The proposal applies the current thresholds for passage to each of the two elections.”
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote would mean that a voter-approved constitutional amendment would have to be approved by voters at a second general election to become effective.
A NO vote would mean that the current system with voter-approved constitutional amendments becoming effective after one general election would stay in place.
Pros: Current process for amending Florida’s Constitution is too easy, and too many constitutional amendments pass without sufficient scrutiny.
Allows more time for reasons to be made for and against a particular proposed amendment. Would limit the number of frivolous amendments that get brought forth and are ultimately passed.
Cons: Florida already requires a super-majority (60%) of voters to approve an amendment for it to pass. Adding a requirement for the amendment to be placed on another ballot in four years would not significantly change the number of amendments that ultimately
get passed.

In Sum: Self explanatory that the reason to change is the REASON NOT TOO: NO

AMENDMENT 5
Extend “Save-Our-Homes” Portability Period for Homestead Property Tax Assessment:
Ballot Language: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2021, to increase, from 2 years to 3 years, the period of time during which accrued Save-Our-Homes benefits may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead.”
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote would extend the period in which someone may transfer
Save-Our-Homes benefits to a new homestead property from two years
to three years.
A NO vote would keep the current Save-Our-Homes benefits transfer
period to two years.
Pros: To transfer Save-Our-Homes benefits to another home, resident must have received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of either of the previous two years. Not the original intent of the exemption when it was passed and thus needs to be amended to better reflect the intentions of the voters. A three-year timetable would give ample time for a
homeowner to transfer their Save-Our-Homes benefits.
Cons: Would decrease local property taxes by an annual $1.8 million in the next fiscal year and would eventually grow to $10.2 million annually. Could cause an issue for some homeowners if they sell their house towards the end of one calendar year and their new home is not built by January 1 of the year after the next. Two years is an acceptable
time period to move from one home to another and to transfer those homestead property savings.

In Sum: This should be a local or county govt. ballot issue not a state one: NO

AMENDMENT 6
Homestead Property Tax Discount for Surviving Spouses of Deceased Veterans:
Ballot Language: “Provides that the homestead property tax discount for certain veterans with permanent combat-related disabilities carries over to such veteran’s surviving spouse who holds legal or beneficial title to, and who permanently resides on, the homestead property, until he or she remarries or sells or otherwise disposes of the property. The discount may be transferred to a new homestead property of the surviving spouse
under certain conditions. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2021.”
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote would mean that a homestead property tax discount may be transferred to the spouse of a deceased veteran.
A NO vote would mean that the homestead property tax discount may not be transferred to the spouse of a deceased veteran.
Pros: This amendment would transfer the homestead property tax discount to the surviving spouse until they remarry, sell, or otherwise do away with the property – and better reflects the intent of the policy when enacted.
Cons: Would potentially result in less property tax revenue— especially during a time where property tax revenue is needed in local communities throughout the state. Many local governments are tasked with maintaining many public services with less money being brought in through tax revenue. Another measure that would leave local government with less money to spend for their communities.
In Sum: This amendment would extend homestead property tax discounts to the spouse of a deceased veteran and allow them to keep the discounts that they are already receiving.

In Sum: Again while we support (and are a political organization founded by veterans and first responders) less taxes not at the cost of the state constitution which should be almost immutable: NO

2016 Ballot Analysis on  Amendments to the Florida state Constitution: 

No. 1 Rights for Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice.

Analysis: This is an unnecessary addition to the state constitution whose primary function should be the definition of Floridians Inalienable Rights and limit the states regulatory authority. The amendment is worded to create this new right of Floridians to not be penalized for solar subsidizing which we do support, adding it to the state constitution for such a narrow and specific infringement by some municipalities is not the intent of the amendment process. This would be better served by local governments on a regional basis.

Transitory amendments to the state constitution only further empowers the state regulatory authority and further empowers the judicial branch for final interpretation when this becomes disputed and it will. NO

No.2 Use of Medical Marijuana ver.2.0:

Please see the analysis from 2014 attempt below, nothing has changed. NO

No.3 Tax Exemption for Totally and Permanently Disabled First Responders:

Analysis: While this party and most Americans and all Conservatives support the men and women who protect and defend us daily it is once again a question of adding an amendment when a local, city, county, rule or regulation would better serve in its place. The reason we continue to see more and more of these attempts to change the constitution is the liberals want to prove their argument that it is a living breathing document that should be considered as such. That it should only be regarded as a document of the time and for the time it was created, both in Florida and in Washington D.C.. This is NOT the view of the majority of the citizenry of this state or this nation yet and the Conservative Party U.S.A. does not support that view. PERIOD. No

No.5 Homestead Tax Exemption for Certain Senior, Low -Income, Long -Term Residents; Determination of Just Value:

Analysis: It is a proposal to amend the State Constitution a power they already possess. NO

2016 Justice of the Florida Supreme Court: 

Many party members have inquired into the 3 justices that are up for retention. All 3 justices were appointed by Charlie Crist and all 3 have voted against the will of the people and demonstrated their liberal ideology from the bench. The Conservative Party of Florida supports their being denied retention by voting NO and giving Gov. Scott the opportunity to appoint new justices who will support and defend Floridians and their rights not attempt to determine them as the current justices have.

 

 

2014 Ballot Analysis on  Amendments to the Florida state Constitution: 

No.1 Constitutional Amendment for Water and Land Conservation-Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands.

Analysis: Amendment 1 would redirect funds from needed programs into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years.

According to the Department of Revenue, throughout the next 20 years, the amendment would siphon off approximately $19 billion from dedicated trust funds…. This amendment would tie the hands of the Florida Legislature in the event of a future downturn in the economy and is not a responsible or effective way of protecting Florida’s environmental resources.

Amendment 1 forces Florida taxpayers to arbitrarily give the government control over more land than the state has the ability to manage and protect from invasive species. This amendment would also encourage other special interests to try to get their funding placed in the Constitution, potentially harming our elected state leaders’ ability to govern in a fiscally responsible way. NO!

No.2 Constitutional Amendment for the use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

 

 

Conservative Party Cost Cutting Road Map for Congress

~~~~~~~~~~~~

STOP BASE LINE BUDGETING: This pernicious accounting gimmick requiresbudgets to automatically increase by 10% every year. The net effect is that even if Congress “cuts” a program by 4%, for example, actual spending still increases by 6%. The “cut” is an illusion while the increase is real. It will be impossible to make meaningful budget reforms until this institutional deception is expunged.

STOP EARMARKING: Stop Congressional Earmarks immediately. While small in comparison to the general budget, this “legal” form of back-room corruption and pork is symptomatic of the culture of entitlement at the heart our fiscal problems. Congress should not bribe their constituents with tax payer money to get re-elected.

CUT CONGRESSIONAL PAY: Reduce congressional salaries, expense accounts and operating budgets by 10%. Freeze salaries and operations budgets at that reduced level for five years.  Average Americans have endured a long list of hardships due to Congressional incompetence and corruption. Now it’s time for Congress to tighten its belt.

CUT FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY: Except for uniformed armed forces personnel, reduce salaries for ALL federal employees and contractors by 5% in 2012 and cut them an additional 5% in 2013.  Freeze all salaries at 2013 levels until 2016.

FREEZE FEDERAL HIRING: Freeze civilian staffing levels for all federal agencies. Reduce staffing (including contractors) for all departments & agencies to December 2009 levels; retain those cuts for five years. Federal Government hiring has increased 35% in the past three years.

CUT OPERATING BUDGETS: Except for DOD, CIA and DHLS, reduce the operating budget for all federal departments & agencies by 10%; retain that cut for five years.  Freeze DOD, CIA and DHLS budgets at 2010 levels for the next five years.

CUT DEPT OF EDUCATION: Reduce DOE’s budget and staff by 15% every year for the next five years. This highly inefficient and bloated bureaucracy has a staff exceeding 4,200 and a $137B annual budget. It has contributed little to educating America’s children as evidenced by declining test scores and high drop-out rates.  Let the states manage education.

CUT FOREIGN AID – NOW: Reduce Foreign Aid by 20% in 2012 and by 10% in each of the next four years. Cut our U.N. annual contributions by 20%. The President and the State Department can decide which countries get reduced aid. America can’t afford to support all these third-world countries, many of whom actually hate us.

DEFUND AND REPEAL OBAMACARE: Defund key enforcement provisions of “ObamaCare”. This includes withholding funds for the 120 new Departments required by this Bill and the hiring of thousands of IRS agents needed to enforce its Mandate. Withhold those funds until there are enough votes in Congress to enact a full repeal and to override a Presidential veto.  Start fresh with a new Bill.

MODIFY SOCIAL SECURITY: Impose means testing for people with net worth exceeding $5M or annual disposable income of $500K; increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67.

FIX MEDICARE AND MEDICADE:  While very popular, these programs are bankrupting America in their current configuration.  Their top-line spending must be cut across the board by 2% every year for the next 10 years (with NO adjustment for inflation) to ensure they’ll be available for our children.

STOP BAILOUTS: Bailing out failing companies makes no more sense today than it would have made in 1900 to bail out buggy manufacturers. Such bailouts have slowed the evolution of entirely new technologies, industries, retarded economic recovery and slowed job growth.  Solyndra and other failed “green” companies are examples of crony capitalism at taxpayer expense, not sound fiscal policy.

ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR ARTS: In these dire times, America can ill afford to spend money on the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). These programs cost more than $200M annually and must be phased out completely within five years.