Yes or No on Florida's Constitutional Amendments?

October 25, 2020 10:46am

Florida voters will see six proposed amendments to the state constitution on the 2020 general election ballots.

Florida's constitution is one of the easiest to amend in the country; too easy in my opinion. And we pretty much have proposed amendments to consider each election year. Given that most proposed amendments - even the obviously foolish and dangerous ones - pass, I am convinced most voters have no clue what they are voting for. Most don’t even know there are amendments to vote on until they are in the voting booth and see them. By then it is too late to make an informed decision. The ballot language is ALWAYS incomplete (only a summary appears on the ballot) and often deceptive (as the proponents draft the verbiage). I think most people who vote to approve amendments do so with no understanding of the ramifications and with the erroneous belief that "they wouldn't have asked me to approve it if it wasn't important." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Anyone can get an amendment on the ballot if they have enough money to buy signatures on a petition.

So on my radio program every election year, I have given my analysis of each proposed amendment. But I haven't done that yet this year, and many listeners have e-mailed me asking for my perspective on each of the proposed constitutional amendments. Since I only have one more show before election day and may not have time to get to it even then, I will share my analysis here. My apologies in advance that these are abbreviated explanations that are not as detailed as they would be if I was speaking them instead of typing them. The full text and abbreviated ballot language of each amendment is viewable at https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/

The first four proposed amendments got on the ballot via the petition method. Only Amendments 5 & 6 were placed there by the legislature.

Amendment 1: Limits voting to adult citizens of the United States and of Florida:
A "yes" vote would place language in the sate constitution that limits voting in Florida elections to only U.S. citizens who are at least 18 years old, are permanent Florida residents, and who are registered to vote in Florida. On the surface, these seem like appropriate requirements, BUT THEY'RE ALREADY REQUIRED. So why are we being asked to approve this amendment? I have no idea. But I suspect subterfuge of some sort. I will be voting "no." But it will pass overwhelmingly because most voters will be fooled into thinking that non-citizens are not currently prohibited from voting even though there is such a prohibition already.

Amendment 2: Increases the state minimum wage to $15/hour:
A "yes" vote would increase Florida's minimum wage by 75.2% from the current $8.56/hour to $15.00 per hour. Although the increase would be phased in over six years, it would cripple businesses throughout the state. Minimum wage increases are always marketed as creating a "living wage" for all workers. But what it really does is artificially increase EXPENSES for almost everybody. If an employee currently makes $6.00 per hour over the minimum wage, do you really think their wages will be static as those who are paid less catch up? No, of course not. Their pay will increase accordingly, which will result in crippling labor costs to businesses who will be forced to raise the prices of their goods and services. It will also result in job losses as businesses accelerate automation to avoid paying higher wages forced upon them by an electorate that doesn't understand economics. Wages need to be set by the labor market not by voters. I will be voting "no."

Amendment 3: Creates a "Jungle Primary":
A "yes" vote would end Florida's current system of choosing party nominees through a primary process in which party members get to choose their nominees. The jungle primary would lump all candidates together on a single primary ballot, which ALL voters would get to vote on. But that means Republican voters could help nominate a Democrat and vice-versa. This is a terrible idea that would create free-for-all mayhem with the nomination process. California uses this system. Need I say more? I will be voting "no."

Amendment 4: Requires constitutional amendments to be approved by voters twice:
A "yes" vote would require all future amendments to the Florida Constitution to be approved in two consecutive elections before they take effect. The current supermajority requirement of 60% would remain unchanged. Florida's constitution is too easy to amend. But would this amendment make it more difficult? Probably not. It'll just make it more time-consuming. The only state that has this requirement in place now is Nevada where 86% of amendments pass the second time anyway. But even if we can't stop dumb amendments, we can at least slow them down. I will be voting "yes."

Amendment 5: Increases the time to transfer “Save Our Homes” benefits from two years to three years:
A "yes" vote would give homeowners three years (up from the current two years) to transfer their grandfathered property assessment caps to a new homesteaded property. This amendment would benefit very few homeowners. But that means it would also have minimal adverse effect on local property tax revenues. While this is not a pressing concern to many Floridians, it is also a harmless one that has merit for those few who are affected. It seems reasonable to me. I will be voting "yes."

Amendment 6: Allows transfer of a veteran's homestead property tax discount to his/her surviving spouse:
Even though it isn’t true, I will be accused of not supporting veterans and wanting to throw widows out onto the streets because of my position on this one. Florida has far too many exemptions on property taxes as it is. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy does. But if we're going to fund local governments through property taxes, such taxes should be as low and as broadly spread as possible. A tax exemption for one person results in higher taxes for another. While I appreciate all who have served this nation in uniform, they don't deserve a special discount on their property taxes because of it. Such exemptions simply transfer the tax burden from being equally shared by veterans to being unfairly carried by non-veterans based upon misplaced patriotism and emotion. But not for me. I base my decision on cold, calculated, reason and logic. Yeah, I'm that insensitive. I will be voting "no."

QUICK LIST OF MY POSITIONS:

Amendment 1: NO
Amendment 2: NO
Amendment 3: NO
Amendment 4: YES
Amendment 5: YES
Amendment 6: NO

I predict amendments 1, 5, & 6 will pass. And I expect Amendment 2 to receive more than 50% of the vote in favor but not reach the 60% required for passage.