Ballot Amendments Explained
Posted by RCPB on October 28, 2018 · Leave a Comment
On October 24, our RCPB lunch consisted of a ballot tutorial by Fred Scheibl. Pointing out that the consequences of passage for many of these amendments are subtle, we heard an argument that the “picks” by various groups (including the RPOF) may be missing some key information.
In particular, it was pointed out that:
- Amendment 1 is touted as a tax cut, but in reality it will shift a tax burden from homestead property to business and rental property when localities raise their millage to counter the drop in revenue.
- If Amendment 2 does not pass and the cap on non-homestead property is allowed to expire on January 1, we will see an effective tax increase in the range of $700M next year.
- Amendment 3 does not provide “voter control of gambling”, it just limits who can put such a measure on the ballot and deprives the Legislature of their power to regulate.
- Amendment 6, in attempting to create additional “rights” for victims, actually compromises the constitutional rights of defendants for a fair trial and will significantly complicate the operation of criminal trials.
The following was provided as a handout at the meeting and may be useful in understanding the implications of the amendments. The boxes in the second column show the preference of RPOF, Trump Club 45, Florida TaxWatch, the Palm Beach Post, and the Sun Sentinel. Green is YES, Red is NO.
| Ballot | Others | My Pick | Rationale | Your Pick ? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 #1 – Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption |
|
NO | Since taxing authorities will simply raise millage to make up for the $600M shortfall, the net effect is to shift a tax burden from homesteaders to businesses and vacation property. Counties and municipalities have booked plans to raise their rates if this passes. Commercial, rental and vacation property owners would see a tax increase on passage, as will homestead owners who fall don’t qualify for the additonal exemption (< $100K) | ||||||
 #2 – Limitations on Property Tax Assessments |
|
YES | This simply makes permanent something we have had for 10 years and is set to expire on January 1. If it doesn’t pass, an estimated $700M new taxes will be immediately imposed on non-homestead property owners since their assessed values (20% or more below market value) would immediately rise to market value next year. | ||||||
 #3 – Voter Control of Gambling in Florida |
|
NO | If passed, would make it very difficult to challenge the Seminole monopoly on gambling and places wrongful restrictions on the legislative body. It doesn’t give voters more control, it just limits who is permitted to put a gambling referendum on the ballot. This would be the first such restraint on the freedom of action by the Legislature, and would be a dangerous precedent. | ||||||
 #4 – Voting Restoration Amendment |
|
NO | There is already a process for a felon to get their voting rights restored after a waiting period, and it requires the felon to ask for it, rather than being an automatic action. Passage could potentially add 10% to the voting population at a single point in time, much larger than the margin of error in recent statewide elections. No one knows how such a large voting block would act, but Democrats believe it will favor them and thus support it overwhelmingly. | ||||||
 #5 – Supermajority to impose / authorize / raise state taxes |
|
YES | Anything that makes it harder to raise taxes is a good thing. Andrew Gillum’s plan for increasing taxes would be stymied if this passes and he is fighting hard to defeat it. Support and opposition to this amendment is largely along party lines. | ||||||
#6 – Rights of Crime Victims, Judges |
|
NO | This amendment increases the rights of victims at the expense of the rights of the accused, and it tampers with the judicial process for criminal trials. It would tie the hands of defense attorneys regarding the timing of hearings, and could require criminal defendents to pay restitution to victims. The criminal justice system arbitrates between the charges brought by the state (who must prove guilt) and the accused who defends against the charges. It is not meant to be a means for victims to extract restitution or revenge, or to inject themselves into the process. That activity belongs in the civil courts. If passed this Would make for VERY BAD law. Passage would also let judges stay on the bench another 5 years (to age 75), and prohibit courts from deferring to the rulings of state agencies (aka the Chevron Doctrine.) | ||||||
 #7 – First Responder / Military survivor benefits, colleges |
|
NO | Creates another unfunded mandate on local governments who would be required to pay the benefits to local first responders, and adds bureaucracy to the management of colleges and universities. The current organizational structure of the college system would be enshrined in the constitution, making it much harder to change if needed. | ||||||
 #9 – Prohibits offshore drilling, indoor vaping |
|
NO | A prohibition on offshore drilling should not be in the constitution. We elect legislators to make these kind of decisions. Removes the Legislature’s control of energy development, limiting future opportunities for tapping oil and gas reserves. Attempts to treat vaping the same as smoking cigarettes, an unproven assertion. | ||||||
 #10- State and Local Government Structure / Operation |
|
NO | This amendment would force the eight counties who currently have appointed officials to create elected constitutional offices. This weakens the “home rule” ability of local governments. Our county already has constitutional elected officials, but some would argue appointing them would be an improvement, particularly with the Sheriff. Other provisions establish executive departments that need not be in the constitution, and constrains the Legislative calendar. | ||||||
#11- Property Rights, cleanup, criminal statutes |
|
YES | This will provide flexibility to affect those sentenced under laws that are being repealed, and otherwise cleans up some obsolete sections of the constitution. | ||||||
 #12- Lobbying and Abuse by Public Officers |
|
NO | The 2 year restriction already in law is sufficient – most states have similar ethics laws but none goes beyond 2 years. This amendment would leave too much of the details of the proposal to others (Ethics Commission), such as defining what is a “disproportionate interest”. Should be a matter for legislation, not the constitution. | ||||||
 #13- Ends Dog Racing |
|
NO | This seeks to eliminate existing businesses and would likely result in a move away from pari-mutual betting to card rooms and slots at existing facilities. Some believe the “humane treatment” language is a trojan horse leading to other restrictions on the treatment of animals (limit hunting for example). | ||||||
 County #1- School Tax increase |
|
NO | The PBC school district just got a 10 year windfall with the sales tax increase. They need to make do with the money they have. According to WJNO’s Brian Mudd, we have the highest per-student spending in the state (over $15K) – much more than even Broward or Miami Dade. |
| Some additional Resources: | |
|---|---|
| Our 2018 Amendments Analysis: | https://gopclubpb.org/2018-election/2018-ballot-questions/ |
| TaxWatch Voter’s Guide: | http://www.floridataxwatch.org/library/2018voterguide |
What is the Constitutional Revision Commission (CRC) ?
The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) convenes once every 20 years to examine the Florida Constitution and propose changes for voter consideration. Created by Article XI, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, the CRC is composed of 37 Commissioners. Fifteen Commissioners are appointed by the Governor of Florida, nine by the President of the Florida Senate, nine by the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and three by the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. The Attorney General of Florida automatically serves on the CRC. The Governor designates the Chair of the CRC.
The CRC meets for approximately one year, traveling across the State of Florida, identifying issues, performing research and possibly recommending changes to the Florida Constitution. As part of this process, the CRC holds public hearings to learn about issues that matter most to Floridians and considers proposed constitutional amendments submitted by the public. Any proposals that pass the CRC’s final vote would be placed on Florida’s General Election ballot (November 6, 2018) and must secure at least 60 percent voter approval to become law.
The 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) was the third of its kind in Florida history.
In 1968, Florida voters passed an amendment requiring a CRC every 20 years.
The 1977-1978 CRC placed eight amendments on the ballot and none passed.
The 1997-1998 CRC placed nine amendments on the ballot for and 8 were passed.
The 2017-2018 CRC held 15 public hearings across the state. It adjourned on May 11, 2018, and compressed 905 individual proposals into 8 complex amendments.
The 37 commissioners were chaired by businessman and former Senate candidate Carlos Beruff who ran against Marco Rubio in the 2016 primary. Also on the commission were Pam Bondi (AG is always a member), State Representative and Lt. Governor candidate Jeanette Nunez, FL Senate candidate Belinda Keiser, and former Senate President Don Gaetz.
The commission considered 123 commissioner proposals and 782 from the public, adopting 25 which were packed into the 8 ballot questions.