The elections are just around the corner and there’s a whole lot more than just Trump and Harris on the ballot. Today, we’re going to focus on the Constitutional Amendments.
NO. 1 – Constitutional Amendment
Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
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.
-
- YES
- NO
Today we choose members of the Miami-Dade County Public School Board in a nonpartisan race. That means, it doesn’t matter if they’re Republican or Democrat. If it moves to a partisan race, that’ll mean the possibility of a primary race for each party and then the general election. It also means more partisan politics at the school board level.
Our take on this is that we already have too much partisan politics. I’m not convinced that the community, the electorate, and most importantly, the students are better served with a partisan election for the Miami-Dade County School Board.
We recommend a NO vote here, but let us know what you think in the comments section.
NO. 2 – Constitutional Amendment
Right to Fish and Hunt
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.
-
- YES
- NO
I’ve never had trouble fishing in our local canals, in the bay, or in the ocean. This is one of those ballot questions where you ask yourself, “Where the heck did this come from?”
As someone who’s enjoyed fishing since he was a little boy, this seems like a no-brainer to vote yes. It doesn’t take away fishing restrictions, size limits, etc.
We recommend voting YES.
NO. 3 – Constitutional Amendment
Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
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. Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms. Provides effective date. The amendment’s financial impact primarily comes from expected sales tax collections. If legal today, sales of non-medical marijuana would be subject to sales tax and would remain so if voters approve this amendment. Based on other states’ experiences, expected retail sales of non-medical marijuana would generate at least $195.6 million annually in state and local sales tax revenues once the retail market is fully operational, although the timing of this occurring is unclear. Under current law, the existing statutory framework for medical marijuana is repealed six months after the effective date of this amendment which affects how this amendment will be implemented. A new regulatory structure for both medical and nonmedical use of marijuana will be needed. Its design cannot be fully known until the legislature acts; however, regulatory costs will probably be offset by regulatory fees. Other potential costs and savings cannot be predicted. THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE A NET POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE STATE BUDGET.
-
- YES
- NO
I personally hate the smell of pot in public areas. In high school, I couldn’t stand the smell of the pot-head who would smoke weed during lunch and then sit right behind me in the following class.
That said, the war on drugs, much like prohibition, has failed miserably. The drug crime that has impacted America throughout the decades has been deplorable. The amount of money the American taxpayer has used to pay for law enforcement, the judicial system, and incarceration is in the billions.
I don’t have a mainstream opinion on drugs. My opinion is that we should legalize, tax, and regulate most drugs for anyone aged 21 and over. Tax it like we tax cigarettes. Use the funding to create an anti-drug educational campaign and addiction treatment care.
There are a lot of people suffering from the disease known as addiction. The war on drugs hasn’t helped a single person get over the disease of addiction. However, a well funded public campaign along with well funded addiction treatment can reduce the use of drugs.
Don’t believe me? Look at the trends for cigarette smoking over the last 50 years. It’s gone down from 42% usage in the ’60s to to 12% today thanks to a major public awareness campaign and significant taxation.
In other words, let’s use drugs to win the war on drugs.
Making it legal eliminates the crime in manufacturing, distributing, and selling. This will lower drug crime. Say goodbye to the cartels. Say goodbye to drug dealers.
Furthermore, kids are dying from taking drugs laced with Fentanyl. Properly regulated, those interested in purchasing a drug can be assured that the drug is in the right dosage and free of unwanted chemicals. In other words, safer drugs.
Again, I’m not a proponent of drug use. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It’s time to think different and try a new…and frankly proven method. Legalize. Tax. Regulate.
That’s a bit long-winded, but our instincts are to support Number 3 and vote YES. What do you think? Let us know in the comments section.
NO. 4 – Constitutional Amendment
Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
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. The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO AMBIGUITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT.
-
- YES
- NO
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America. My opinion is not likely to change anyone’s opinion. We believe every life is precious. And while much attention is paid to abortion exceptions like incest, rape, or the health of the mother, most of the few abortions I know of were done by women who simply did not want the inconvenience of a baby in that point of their lives. To put it more bluntly, they didn’t want to deal with the consequences for their actions.
That said, I’ve also heard the horror story from a local resident walking into the girls bathroom at Miami Springs Senior High only to find a bloody mess from a self administered abortion. (Yes. That was before Roe v Wade.)
My recommendation when choosing to vote on this matter, pray and ask God for guidance for what’s right.
NO. 5 – Constitutional Amendment
Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
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.
-
- YES
- NO
This will increase the Homestead Exemption for property owners over time. This seems like a no-brainer.
We recommend voting YES.
NO. 6 – Constitutional Amendment
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
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.
-
- YES
- NO
Repealing this law will prevent tax-payers from paying for political campaigns by candidates running for a statewide office.
We recommend YES.
Give us your opinion. Was this review helpful? We’d love to have your input.
Amendment 6: repealing provisions of the current Florida Constitution which provide conditional public funding to certain candidates running for statewide public office.
The number one threat to our democracy is private contributions to candidates running for public office. Our elected officials largely start fundraising for their re-election campaign the day after they first take office. Our elected officials are now owned by the private contributors who expect something for their contributions, and it shows. It undermines the public’s trust of their government, it results in the expenditure of public taxes in ways that fail the public’s interests, and it caters to those of the campaign contributors. And thanks to the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling, money is now considered free speech, and corporations are considered “persons.” This setup has conspired to aid the process of taking government away from the people, and putting it in the controlling hands of wealthy oligarchs.
The only way to save the “American Experiment” is to get the private money out of elections. This means you ban all private contributions to elections, ban PACs, limit campaigns to two months, establish a fair practices (equal time) rule for all public media, and publicly fund all qualified candidates equally, so that they are forced to run on their ideas, wits, accomplishments, and character, rather than on some fat cat’s wallet. Free speech, as described under “Citizens United,” is no longer free when it is amped up by overwhelmingly huge private campaign donations, to the point that it drowns out all other speech.
Take the money out of it, and the lobbyists, the influence peddlers, suddenly have no influence to peddle.
That’s the country I want to live in, one in which government can be relied on to work for the public’s interest.
So, I don’t want to lose even this small shred of progress toward those goals. I will urge you to vote NO on Amendment 6 to preserve this beginning to fair campaigns, and I hope you’ll get on the on the public funding bandwagon, so we can finish the job of defeating the crippling corruption we have now.
Benjamin Franklin was asked upon the final ratification of our new, national constitution, “Does this mean we now have a republic?” He replied, “You do, if you can keep it.”
And, I recommend you vote NO on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2:
“SECTION 28. Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife.—Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. This section does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV.[5]”
There are two salient provisions here that need to be addressed:
1) that the preferred use of traditional methods of taking fish and wildlife are protected as a right under this language, and
2) that it is established that traditional methods of taking fish and wildlife are the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”
On the first point, if fishing and hunting are to be constitutional rights, then it can be argued that any management rules, preserves, no fishing areas, limits, seasons, even licensing can be construed in a lawsuit as a violation of those rights.
Secondly, by specifically including “traditional methods” as both a right and the constitutionally preferred method of managing fish and wildlife, it leaves open to question what those traditional methods are. Are they the rules of the FWC based on the sound science of good biologists and experts? Or are they old, historic methods of taking fish and wildlife? If the latter, then does this allow castanets and gigs in freshwater areas, targeting gamefish? Does it open the door to lawsuits challenging the coastal bans on roller nets which wiped out the seasonal mackerel runs years ago? How about opening Florida State Parks, and wilderness preserves to hunting? After all, under the amendment, “traditional” methods of taking become a constitutional “right” and a “preferred” way to manage our natural animal resources.
Yes, it says that it doesn’t affect the “authority” of the Florida Wildlife Commission, but it says nothing about how lawsuits brought under the amendment will affect the current and future rules they make.
I suggest that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” especially when deceptive language could lead to the undoing of decades of progress in existing wildlife management..