All Florida 2024 Proposed Constitutional Amendments

"Supporters of Amendment 6, including the majority of the Florida Legislature, state that this financing, which comes from Florida’s general fund, could be used for other programs such as education, health care or housing."

Interesting as these were the same programs used to funnel money into advertising against Amendments 3 & 4.

 

Yes to 3 and 4. No to the rest.

 

My votes:
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. No

 

Anyone have any more details on 2? Not sure why it needs to be a constitutional amendment and not sure why it's so vague. Perhaps that's the point.

 

I'm voting against 2 because of this 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."

Fishing and hunting have their roles to play, but I don't think we should put a constitutional provision in place that limits our flexibility in responding to ecological crises.

 

I can only imagine how broadly that could be abused by a corrupt state government.

 

I am voting yes on 3 and 4. No on the others but I am persuadable on probably number 2. Not sure why this is necessary though.

 

Yeah. Seems like something I agree with in principle, but seems wholly unnecessary as an amendment. I say this every election, but the legislature loves to punt on shit and have it come up as an un-needed amendment.

 

And then ignore the will of the people when amendments are passed anyway.

 

1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Maybe
6. No

 

Not that my opinion matters, but I ask the first question/hurdle to vote "yes" on any amendment - does the amendment concern an actual constitutional issue, or is it a budgeting, police power, etc. matter that the legislature should determine (i.e., not avoid their obligation to enact or not enact legislation)? This year, most of the proposed amendments are, or arguably are, constitutional issues.

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 arguably meet the "is it a consitutional issue."

2 is probably the weakest one of this group to be included in the constitution - and I admit to being a supporter of fishing/hunting access.

3 is clearly a police power/justice issue that should be determined by the legislature. I may or may not agree with the terms of the proposed amendment, but it is not a constitutional issue and will vote "no" on this one.

1,4,5,6 have pro's and con's and each person should consider their import. As always, the language of each is problematic and I tend to simply vote "no" because such referendums are subject to persuasion by advertising as opposed to individuals having to debate and put their offices on the line. No. 4 is inherently the worst example of this given the vagueness and lack of definition. I'd rather the representatives of the people continue to hash this out with future changes in compromises through legislation. Making this vague proposal a constitutional amendment will lead to confusion in the courts and only exacerbate the division of our State - and we'll have a counter-proposed amendment at the next election that will undoubtedly have similar deficiencies.

 

I think you need to spend some more time analyzing 4. It's not vague, you're either for allowing women to have access to abortions up to viability or you're not. There will be no compromise from our legislature, the same one that passed the draconian 6 weeks ban. Quite frankly, your position reads like an anti-choice position paper.

 

I vote yes on 3, 4, and 5…yes on 5 because I think when a law sets a fixed dollar amount, it makes sense to adjust it for inflation….

 

No on 1

Yes on 2, though not sure it is needed and okay if it does not pass.

Yes on 3, although I don't like the fact that it does not include being people being able to grow their own. I will add I do not use it at all but did for years when I was younger.
Yes on 4
Yes on 5
No on 6

 

3 & 4 are the only obvious yes votes.

I will probably go yes on 1. Its kind of a double edged sword, but I think partisan labels solves some of the issues with lack of good info in local elections. They are already partisan except in name only. Pretty hard "no" on everything else. Though the "right" to fish and hunt could be an interesting avenue to sue the state for environmental protections and restrict development in some cases.

 

1 should be the opposite. Remove the party label from all races. Make people do their homework.

 

I didnt like homework in school, so I definitely dont need more now. I find np elections stupid. We have a Democrat and Republican in a runoff for a non-partisan commissioner race, but the only information you can get is that one wants "responsible development" and the other wants to "develop responsibly" ... the partisan label gives me more information about their general views and who's backing them, not less.

 

This is where I currently stand as well. 5 sounds nice, but it takes a lot of money out of the counties. Alachua County has relatively high tax rates (2nd in the state as of last year), but it just doesn't seem that expensive to me for what we get. We have kids, so we more than our fair share of value back in schooling alone. I can't imagine anybody with kids that attend public schools or use vouchers valued in excess of what they contribute complaining about tax rates (I realize there are other tax payers ).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Yeah. The vagueness point is just weird. Courts used the viability standard for decades. At this time, it's clear what that means. After viability, it falls to the doctor (along with the patient) to decide whether it is necessary for health reasons. That shouldn't be controversial, yet I imagine it will be with some because of the fearmongering anti-abortion folks have done about things that never or almost never happen.

I think the argument is stronger for more significant positions. But school board really shouldn't be about partisan politics. When it becomes that, we are going in the wrong direction as a society. So I'll be an idealist and hope we start moving in a sane direction again.