Florida ballot amendments 2024: a common-sense overview

With Election Day coming up on Tuesday, Nov. 5, and early voting already underway, two proposed constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot this year in Florida have secured a great deal of attention: Florida’s marijuana legalization initiative, Amendment 3, and Florida’s abortion rights initiative, Amendment 4.

But there are four others that are on the ballot this year, too. For the sake of giving our readers a place to start, Orlando Weekly has put together a basic overview of all six statewide ballot initiatives.

We’re not telling you who, or what, to vote for. That’s up to you. We’re just here to help you feel informed in your decision to vote, however you choose. You can also check out an overview we put together of some of the anti-abortion judges and Supreme Court justices on the ballot, too. You know, in case you were wondering.

Let’s dive in.

Amendment 1: Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards

Florida Amendment 1 would amend the state Constitution to require school board members to be elected through a partisan election (that is, candidates would be identified by political party) rather than a nonpartisan election. This would apply beginning with the November 2026 election.

Effectively, this would repeal a previous constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 1998 that had made school board elections nonpartisan.

What supporters say: This would provide voters with information about candidates for school board (specifically, their political and ideological beliefs) — information that they’re probably looking up anyway.

What opponents say: This would unnecessarily polarize and politicize public schools to a greater extent than they already have been, thanks to culture-war policies advanced by the GOP in recent years targeting books in schools, discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation, etc.

A “yes” vote means you support making school board elections partisan.

A “no” vote means you support keeping school board elections nonpartisan.

Amendment 2: Right to Fish and Hunt

Florida’s Amendment 2 would amend the state Constitution to “preserve forever fishing and hunting” as a “public right.” Basically, establishing a constitutional right to fish and hunt. Florida law already recognizes the right to do these things.

What supporters say: Amendment 2 would preserve traditions and prevent state lawmakers from taking away or restricting Floridians’ hunting and fishing practices.

What opponents say: This is targeting an imaginary threat. Amendment 2 could also threaten conservation efforts and prioritize certain rights (hunting, fishing) over others (property rights, etc).

A “yes” vote means you support making the right to hunt and fish a constitutional right (rather than just a right that’s already recognized under Florida statutes).

A “no” vote means you do not support enshrining the right to hunt and fish in the State Constitution.

Amendment 3: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana

Florida’s Amendment 3 would legalize recreational/non-medical use of marijuana for adults age 21 and older, and make it legal for the average 21-and-up adult to possess up to 3 ounces of marijuana and up to 5 grams of cannabis concentrate. Currently, marijuana is only legal in Florida for medical use, and you need to have a medical marijuana card, renewed every 10 months by a doctor, in order to legally purchase it.

Going deeper: Florida voters last weighed in on marijuana policy in 2016, when 71% of Floridians voted in favor of legalizing medical marijuana use. If Florida voters approve Amendment 3 this year, it would make Florida the 25th state to legalize recreational marijuana use.

What supporters say: Legalizing marijuana for personal use is “common sense” and would save taxpayer dollars currently “wasted” on jailing people for simply possessing marijuana. Experts also estimate that legalization and regulation of marijuana would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax revenue.

What opponents say: Legalizing recreational marijuana would make the state smell bad, and would serve only to benefit powerful special interests (e.g. cannabis dispensaries). Marijuana legalization would “put children at risk.”

A “yes” vote would support the legalization of marijuana for personal use by adults age 21 and older.

A “no” vote would oppose the legalization of marijuana for personal use by adults age 21 and older.

Amendment 4: Amendment to Limit Government Interference With Abortion

Florida’s Amendment 4 would enshrine the right to have an abortion in the state Constitution and prevent state legislators from banning or restricting abortion access before viability or “when necessary to protect the patient’s health” as determined by the person’s healthcare provider. Under Florida statutes, “viability” is defined as “the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.” Generally, this occurs between 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy. Currently, most abortions in Florida are banned after six weeks. Florida’s Amendment 4 would not change a requirement under the state Constitution that a parent or guardian be notified before a minor has an abortion.

What supporters say: Amendment 4 would limit the government’s ability to interfere with personal medical decisions that should be made between a pregnant person and that person’s physician. Amendment 4 would restore and protect personal freedoms, and free doctors from the risk of facing criminal penalties for providing pregnant women necessary medical care to protect their health and safety.

What opponents say: Amendment 4 is “radical,” “extreme,” and would allow a person to get an abortion whenever, up to the point of birth if they pleased. Opponents also argue it would trample parental rights.

A “yes” vote would extend Florida’s current abortion limit to the point of viability, equal to about 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy.

A “no” vote would keep Florida’s six-week abortion ban in place.

Amendment 5: Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions

Florida’s Amendment 5 would annually adjust for inflation the value of current and future homestead property tax exemptions, effective Jan. 1, 2025. Currently, Florida homeowners are able to benefit from a fixed homestead exemption, which reduces the taxable value of a property. It’s a tax cut, but one that also ultimately affects the budgets of local governments — meaning, less money for public safety, infrastructure, public works, parks, libraries, etc. A legislative analysis of Amendment 5 estimated that, within the first year alone, adjusting the homestead exemption for inflation would reduce tax revenue by about $23 million. That figure would grow to an estimated $111.8 million in the 2028-2029 fiscal year. This amendment would not affect school district taxes.

What supporters say: Amendment 5 would offer homeowners some property tax relief. So, savings for homeowners.

What opponents say: While the idea of a tax cut is nice, this would also reduce the tax dollars available to fund city and county government services and programs, including law enforcement, parks and recreation, public infrastructure (e.g. roads), etc. Amendment 5 wouldn’t help renters/non-homeowners.

A “yes” vote would require annual adjustments to the homestead tax exemption based on inflation (using Consumer Price Index data from the U.S. Department of Labor).

A “no” vote would keep the homestead tax exemption fixed, like it is today.

Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Campaign Finance Requirement

Florida’s Amendment 6 would get rid of a campaign financing program that gives candidates running for statewide offices (governor, cabinet offices) the right to public financing for their campaigns if they agree to certain terms, such as spending limits and an audit. The intent of this program is to help allow working-class people run for office — not just billionaires who can burn through money without blinking. Currently, under this matching funds program, the state will match contributions of up to $250 for candidates who can first demonstrate their ability to raise money on their own. For gubernatorial candidates, they need to first raise $150,000. For cabinet positions (e.g. Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer), the floor is $100,000.

Going deeper: This matching funds program was first created through legislation in 1986. Then, in 1998, Florida voters approved a constitution amendment enshrining the right to public campaign financing in the State Constitution. This 2024 proposal would repeal that.

What supporters say: Amendment 6 would save taxpayers money. Allowing taxpayer dollars to be used for campaigning is a waste, and could be better put toward other government services and programs.

What opponents say: Repealing this program would further inhibit the ability of working-class people to be able to afford to run for office. Public financing creates a level playing field for those with fewer resources to burn on campaigning. Voters already indicated they’re fine with keeping this program in place by voting down a similar repeal effort in 2010.

A “yes” vote would repeal the state’s public financing program.

A “no” vote would keep the state’s public financing program in place.

Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

This article appears in Oct 23-29, 2024.