Amendments for dummies? James Madison Institute offers guide to Florida’s 2024 ballot initiatives

Stock image via Adobe.

The James Madison Institute (JMI), a conservative think tank, has released its 2024 Amendment Guide to Florida’s six constitutional amendments appearing on the ballot this November.

The guide offers ballot language, a brief explanation of what the amendment would do and pros and cons to voting in favor for each amendment appearing on the Nov. 5 ballot.

While JMI is a conservative advocacy organization — seeking to promote limited government and free market ideals — and an advisory board member to the controversial Project 2025, the guide does not offer suggestions on how to vote and its language is not skewed to elicit favoritism one way or another.

“It is our pleasure to provide this 2024 Amendment Guide. We hope it is of value to Florida voters as they evaluate each of the six constitutional amendments that will be presented to them on their ballot,” the guide opens. “Each amendment is unique and should be considered seriously.”

The guide explains how constitutional amendments make the ballot, how the amendments are approved or denied and how to repeal an amendment once it has been approved.

In Florida, ballot measures can be placed before voters in two ways — either by the state Legislature with 60% support among both House and Senate members, or by citizens through a petition process. However amendments land on the ballot, they require 60% plus one voter support to pass. To remove an amendment from the state constitution, another ballot measure must appear on the ballot.

Florida also requires proposed amendments to focus on a single subject, meaning amendments cannot be bundled to include different items.

The guide includes an overview of this year’s six amendments, including whether it was placed on the ballot through the Legislature or citizen initiative, the amendment title, subject and a brief description.

It then dives deeper into each Amendment, with the ballot language voters will see when they are voting, how the amendment reached the ballot, an explanation of what a “yes” or “no” vote means, the pros and cons to amendment passage, whether the issue requires a ballot measure or could be addressed legislatively, and a summation of the proposed amendment.

Here’s some of the information:

Amendment 1: Establishing School Board elections as partisan

This amendment would require local School Board races, which are currently nonpartisan, to be partisan. That means currently candidates seeking School Board seats cannot share their political party affiliation, and their affiliation cannot appear on the ballot. The proposed amendment would change that, requiring party affiliation to appear on the ballot and allowing candidates to share their partisanship. It would also allow political parties to select through a Primary a nominee for the School Board seat being sought.

The amendment was placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

A “yes” vote on the measure would support changing races to be partisan, while a “no” vote on the measure would uphold the current prohibition on partisan School Board races.

“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. Having more explicitly political candidates could allow voters to learn more about the priorities of each potential school board member, as well as what candidates are likely to do while in office,” JMI’s guide reads.

Opponents, the group explains, argue such races “should remain as apolitical as possible.”

The measure cannot be implemented by the Legislature, and thus requires a constitutional amendment.

Amendment 2: Establishing a state constitutional right to hunt and fish

This initiative, placed on the ballot by state lawmakers, would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into Florida’s Constitution, and make it more difficult for legislators to pass laws that would ban or restrict hunting or fishing.

Supporters of the amendment believe its implementation would “protect individuals’ rights to gaming and sporting how they wish” and argue that such activities “play an important role in the traditions and economics of the state.”

Detractors, meanwhile, say such an amendment poses a threat to wildlife by making it harder to restrict various types of hunting and fishing, which could have a negative impact on “various species that may be threatened by excessive fishing and hunting.”

The measure cannot be addressed through legislative action and, thus, requires a constitutional amendment.

Amendment 3: Recreational marijuana legalization

The amendment would allow those age 21 or older to possess, purchase or use cannabis products and accessories for recreational purposes, meaning Floridians would no longer need medical authorization to use the drug. It would apply to of-age Floridians and tourists alike. It would also authorize existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers and other state licensed entities to cultivate and sell such products and accessories.

Supporters of the citizen-initiated ballot measure argue the amendment would provide a new right to Floridians while also increasing tax revenue that could be used for purposes benefiting Floridians.

Opponents, however, worry such legalization could make it easier for kids to get their hands on the drug, and exacerbate drug abuse and associated public costs to address abuse. Additionally, critics argue the amendment would violate federal law, which still classifies cannabis as an illegal substance.

Such a law, JMI points out, could be handled legislatively. Often, citizen-led initiatives are sought because even though the Legislature could take action, lawmakers decline to do so.

Amendment 4: Right to abortion

This amendment would enshrine abortion protections into state law by prohibiting legislators from enacting laws that would “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.” It would not nullify the Legislature’s ability to require parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.

Supporters of the amendment are seeking passage to expand current abortion access in the state, which is currently banned after six weeks of pregnancy, a law passed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. It’s one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country.

Opponents argue the definition of fetal viability varies by patient and that such variations could lay the groundwork for future controversy. They also worry the ballot’s language could mean late-term abortions could be protected because language regarding a pregnant person’s health does not include a restriction on when that determination could be made. Opponents are also against abortion in general.

Another citizen-led initiative, the measure could be addressed legislatively by a future legislative body. However, the current Legislature has gone the other direction, imposing restrictive bans.

Amendment 5: Homestead Exemption inflation adjustment

This amendment would require “an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions.”

It’s a more complicated measure than the others. Under the state’s current Homestead Exemption law, homeowners have access to two exemptions on property they own that is also their primary home. Both are for $25,000. The amendment would allow the second of those two to be indexed to changes in the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation.

So, as the JMI description explains, if the rate of inflation was 8%, the second $25,000 exemption would become $27,000, increasing the overall exemption to $52,000. The exemption reduces the amount of taxable value on a property, helping homeowners keep their property taxes lower.

Supporters argue the measure would help with home affordability by reducing property tax liability as inflation drives values higher. Opponents worry the measure would hurt local governments by reducing revenue from property taxes, requiring local officials to instead raise taxes locally.

The measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

Amendment 6: Repeal of public campaign financing

Under the current section of Florida’s Constitution addressing public funds for campaigns, in certain races for statewide office — including Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer and Commissioner of Agriculture — candidates who meet certain requirements can receive public funding for their campaigns.

The provision requires that the candidate limit how much they will spend on the campaign and allow an audit of their finance activity after the election. The amendment would repeal that provision, effectively eliminating any option to receive public funds for political campaigns.

Supporters of overturning the current provision argue taxpayer funds should not be used for election purposes, and that eliminating the expense would free up state funds and, thus, could lower taxes for residents.

Critics of the measure, which was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, say the current provision allows candidates that lack resources to self-fund or political connections to raise funds to be able to run for office. They say it effectively levels the playing field for candidates.