Florida Amendments: Our endorsements along with other social justice organizations in the state.

Amendment 1

Ballot Language:
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.

What would Amendment 1 change about school board elections in Florida?

Amendment 1 would make school board elections partisan beginning in 2026. Candidates would be nominated for the general election through partisan primaries and be featured on the ballot with partisan labels, such as Democratand Republican. As of 2024, the Florida Constitution requires school board elections to be nonpartisan, meaning that partisan labels do not appear on the ballot next to a candidate’s name.

Florida had partisan school board elections until voters approved Amendment 11, which prohibited party labels in school board elections, in 1998. Amendment 11 was referred to the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.

School board members in Florida are elected by the voters of the county and serve four-year terms. The school board controls school property, establishes, organizes, and operates the schools of the district, including establishing schools, adopting enrollment plans, providing for school elimination and consolidation, cooperating with school boards of adjoining districts in maintaining schools, maintaining the school year schedule, and other duties as outlined in Florida law.

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 1.

A “yes” vote supports making school board elections partisan beginning in the November 2026 general election and for primary elections nominating party candidates for the 2026 election.

A “no” vote opposes making school board elections partisan, thereby maintaining current procedures where school board members are elected in a nonpartisan election.

Amendment 2 –Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2024)

Ballot 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. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section of Article IV of the State Constitution.

What would the amendment do?

The ballot measure would provide a state constitutional right to hunt and fish and declare that hunting and fishing are the preferred means for “responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife” and “shall be preserved forever as a public right.” The amendment would not limit the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 9.

Arguments pro

Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association: “Florida is an incredibly important state for the sportfishing industry and is considered the Fishing Capital of the World. Our state attracts more than 4.3 million anglers who make fishing in Florida an economic engine that contributes nearly $14 billion in economic output and supports more than 120,000 jobs.”
House Speaker Paul Renner (R): “[The amendment will] permanently [preserve] Floridians’ right to fish and hunt. For generations, Floridians have used fishing and hunting as a means to provide for themselves and their families.”
State Sen. Jim Boyd (R): “It’s really hard to believe that there are states that are outlawing fishing and hunting. Florida will not be one of those states.”
State Rep. Lauren Melo (R-80): “[The amendment] is about the heritage of Florida. Many people don’t realize the economic value fishing and hunting provides our great state, combining just over $15 billion annually. People come from all over the world to catch our tarpon and snapper, and chase our turkeys and ducks. Passing this legislation is a powerful statement that we support and champion our fishing and hunting traditions, and we want to protect (them) for our future.”

Arguments con

Humane Wildlife Consulting of South Florida: “We are in the midst of a global extinction crisis and a climate crisis. Our wildlife need a break from the carnage. We should be accelerating measures to alleviate the harm being done and mitigate the damage; which includes taking proactive measures to eliminate, as best we can, the unnecessary trapping and senseless killing of our wildlife and to incentivize nonlethal control measures.”
NoTo2: “Even though the planet has lost 69% of its wildlife over the past 50 years, this amendment would create a fundamental right in the Florida Constitution to Hunt and Fish using ‘traditional methods.’ … This ill-advised amendment could be used to override protections for fish stocks such as effectively nullifying the prohibition on Gill Nets that are a wall of death in the sea.”
Speak Up Wekiva: “The right to hunt and fish already exists in Florida Statutes. The NRA and its political operatives are trying to convince Floridians that hunting and fishing are in jeopardy. They are not currently, but if Amendment 2 passes it will make fishing a ‘public right’ opening up our waters to massive foreign commercial fishing vessels. A ‘public right’ is not restricted to just Florida citizens. Laws are necessary to restrict bad actors from depleting our oceans of fish and our forests of native wildlife. Do you really want to give hunters the right to walk onto your property in pursuit of a raccoon or a bear? This Amendment will lead to hunters trespassing on private property, emboldened with their new constitutional right, as they have done in other states that have passed similar amendments.”
Clay Henderson, author of “Forces of Nature: A History of Florida Land Conservation” and president emeritus of the Florida Audubon Society: “The amendment goes too far in declaring this right to hunt and fish as a ‘public right.’ No other right in our constitution is described in this way. It seems to imply this right is even more important than our other fundamental rights. Perhaps it means this right to hunt is more important than one’s right to ‘possess and protect property.’ The language in the original NRA proposal states, “this section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights,” but the Florida Legislature didn’t include that important restriction. … The biggest concern for me and other mainstream conservationists is that the amendment proclaims hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.” Really? Often the preferred means to conserve fish and wildlife is to limit hunting and fishing to protect their numbers. That’s why we have limits on the size of fish that can be taken and seasons for hunting. These are reasonable rules to protect numbers of fish and game. Populations of grouper, red snapper, and redfish have been severely regulated as their numbers have declined. Allowing more fishing will not increase their numbers. We don’t allow bear hunting in Florida because the bear population is confined to isolated areas and may not be sustainable. Many of us think this proposal is just a door to bring back bear hunting. As one of a few lawyers who have drafted most of the environmental provisions of Florida’s constitution, I can tell you that every word matters in a proposed amendment. That’s why another section of this proposal is scary. It proclaims this right to hunt and fish includes ‘the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever.’ What does this mean? To me it clearly means return to steel jaw traps, spears, spearfishing, gill nets, and other inhumane means of hunting and fishing.”
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: “This amendment could also have a significant impact on the state’s ability to manage public lands against wildfires and flooding. Some analysts have suggested that this amendment could even trump the rights of private property owners to restrict hunting on their own land. It could certainly tie the hands of future lawmakers to respond to currently unforeseen environmental consequences of hunting, such as Florida’s ban on gill-net fishing or its most recent laws against the gruesome “Internet hunt” sites that allow online users to fire real guns, loaded with real ammunition, at Florida wildlife using remote control and webcams— a practice so dangerous and wasteful that it’s banned in 42 states. That’s why this amendment seems so scary. Nobody can say exactly what it could do, or how much harm it could cause. Meanwhile, the only arguments in its favor seem to rest on the fallacy that hunting and fishing in Florida are under attack. So what’s the point of putting it on the ballot? The best argument we can see for this stinker is that it’s bait — intended to draw out low-information, far-right voters who can be easily swindled into believing that their rights are somehow under attack and who will, presumably, be voting conservative across the rest of the ballot.”

A “yes” vote supports establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida.

A “no” vote opposes establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida.

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Ballot Language:
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 initiative would legalize recreational marijuana for adults 21 years old and older. Individuals would be allowed to possess up to three ounces of marijuana (about 85 grams), with up to five grams in the form of concentrate. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized under the initiative to sell marijuana to adults for personal use. The Florida State Legislature could provide by state law for the licensure of entities other than existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to cultivate and sell marijuana products

Medical marijuana was adopted by Florida voters in 2016 by a vote of 71% to 29%

What is the status of recreational marijuana in the United States?

As of November 8, 2023, 24 states and Washington, D.C., had legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes.

In 13 states and D.C., the ballot initiative process was used to legalize marijuana.
In two states, the legislature referred a measure to the ballot for voter approval.
In nine states, bills to legalize marijuana were enacted into law.

Florida is one of ten states that has an initiative process and that has not yet legalized marijuana. The other states are Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Oklahoma voters rejected an initiative to legalize marijuana on March 7, 2023. Initiatives were rejected by voters in Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota in 2022.

Argument Pro

State Sen. Joe Gruters (R-22): “Supporting Amendment 3 is a common-sense decision that prioritizes individual freedom, health, safety and economic growth. By legalizing recreational marijuana for adults, we can give Floridians access to safe products, generate significant revenue for critical public services and create new job opportunities for Floridians.
Florida trial lawyer John Morgan: “I am putting my name and my heart into passing Amendment 3 and believe now is the time to treat marijuana the same as we treat beer, wine and spirits. Passing Amendment 3 will create tens of thousands of new jobs, generate hundreds of millions for our state each year, and save taxpayers money by not having to pay to prosecute simple crimes for possession. I encourage Florida voters to join me in standing up for freedom, for common-sense laws, for the people and for Amendment 3.

Argument Con

Vote No on 3 Spokeswoman Sarah Bascom: “Amendment 3 will have disastrous downstream consequences that will turn our state into an east coast version of California. It will threaten the health and safety of every community in Florida by allowing drug dealers to run rampant with zero consequences, creating a dangerous explosion in the black market, and forcing families to completely alter their lives to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): “Regardless of how someone feels about abortion or marijuana, I don’t believe that those issues should be resolved in the state constitution

Florida Amendment 3, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, is on the ballot in Florida’s an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024.

A “yes” vote supports legalizing marijuana for adults 21 years old and older and allowing individuals to possess up to three ounces of marijuana.

A “no” vote opposes legalizing marijuana for adult use in Florida

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 3.

Amendment 4

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative,

Ballot Language:
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.

What would the initiative do?

The initiative would provide a constitutional right to abortion before viability or when “necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

The following language would be added to the state constitution: “Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, 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.”

The initiative would not change the state legislature’s authority to enact a law requiring the parents of a minor to be notified if their child is seeking an abortion, with exceptions that can be attained through a judicial waiver.

Arguments- Pro

U.S. President Joe Biden (D): “Next week one of the nation’s most extreme anti-abortion law is going to take effect here in Florida. It criminalizes reproductive healthcare before a woman even knows that they are pregnant.” Biden discussed other abortion rights measures appearing on statewide ballots and said, “This November, you can add Florida to that list. Are you ready to do that? You’ve gotta show up to vote.”
Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-35): “The fight for freedom has never been more critical. Despite the fact that abortion is no longer a partisan issue for Americans, elected Republicans across the US are working to take away access to women’s healthcare. We must not back down!”

Supporters, including Floridians Protecting Freedom, the ACLU of Florida, Planned Parenthood, Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, Florida Rising, SEIU 1199 Florida, Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida, Florida Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Florida, say “All Floridians deserve the freedom to make personal medical decisions, free of government intrusion.”

Arguments- Con

Florida Family Action: “The sponsors of this extreme amendment want to legalize abortion up to the moment of birth and to repeal all limitations and regulations on abortion – even safety regulations that protect women – because they want to make Florida the home of late-term abortions in the Southeast.”
Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R): “As just one example of how misleading this initiative is, the initiative creates a right to abortion through ‘viability.’ … The sponsor has gone so far attempting to deceive Floridians as to not post any information on its website on what it means by viability and when the right to abortion, which it is attempting to enshrine in our Constitution, ends. … While I personally would not vote for this initiative no matter what definition of ‘viability’ it was using, I know that to some voters, it is material to their vote – whether you are talking about an abortion in the first trimester or at the end of the second trimester.”

Opponents, including the Republican Party of Florida, Florida Voters Against Extremism, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, Florida Family Policy Council, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Florida Family Action, say the amendment is too vague and will lead to an unregulated abortion industry.

A “yes” vote supports adding the following language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “… 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.” Amendment 4 would maintain the current constitutional provision that permits a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor can receive an abortion.

A “no” vote opposes amending the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights to provide that the state cannot “… 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.”

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 4.

Amendment 5

Ballot Language:
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.

What would Amendment 5 do?

As of 2024, in Florida, property tax (millage) rates were set by counties, school districts, cities, and special districts. Homes in Florida are assessed at just value (market value), minus the homestead exemption. The homestead exemption reduces the taxable value of a property. Every primary residence is eligible for a $25,000 homestead exemption, which exempts that amount from all taxes. Another $25,000 homestead exemption is applied on a homestead’s value between $50,000 and $75,000, which exempts that amount from all taxes except school district taxes.

The amendment would provide for an annual inflation adjustment for the value of the homestead property tax exemption that applies to non-school taxes. The adjustment would be made every year on January 1 based on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index reported by the U.S. Department of Labor if the change is positive.

A “yes” vote supports an annual inflation adjustment to the amount of assessed value that is exempt from property taxation.

A “no” vote opposes an annual inflation adjustment to the amount of assessed value that is exempt from property taxation.

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 5.

Amendment 6

Ballot Language:

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.

What would Amendment 6 do?

The amendment would repeal Section 7 of Article VI of the Florida Constitution, which provides for public campaign financing for statewide candidates who agree to spending limits. Currently, under Article VI, public campaign financing is available for candidates for the offices of governor, attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture.

Public financing in Florida is available for candidates for the offices of governor and elected cabinet members (attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture). To qualify for public campaign financing, a candidate must

not be running unopposed;
agree to expenditure limits;
raise $150,000 (for gubernatorial candidates) or $100,000 (for cabinet candidates);
limit loans or contributions from the candidate’s personal funds to $25,000 and limit contributions from political parties to $250,000; and
report campaign financing data to the division of elections and submit to a post-election financial audit.

Arguments Pro

State Sen. Travis Hutson (R-7): “We’re putting it to the voters to make the decision on whether we should spend general revenue funds helping candidates run for office, or on other means that could help our constituents. … I think it’s absurd that anybody would be able to use taxpayer dollars for the purposes of campaigning. So those are dollars we could spend on things like education, things like healthcare, water projects, beach restoration, all of that stuff.”

Arguments Con

State Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-42): “The intention is, if you are running against an incumbent or someone of greater means, that you can leverage your small dollar support and maximize that by receiving public funds. Public money levels the political playing field.”
Libby Livette of the League Of Women Voters: “Without access to public funds, only the wealthy and the well-connected would be able to afford to run.”
Marcus McCoy, pastor and state director of Equal Ground Action Fund: “Public financing encourages a more diverse pool of candidates to participate in elections.”

A “yes” vote supports repealing the state constitutional provision that provides for public financing of campaigns for those running for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.

A “no” vote opposes repealing the constitutional provision that allows for the public financing of campaigns, therefore continuing to allow public campaign financing for statewide candidates who agree to certain spending limits.

In Florida, a 60% vote is required for voters to approve Amendment 6

Citation: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_2024_ballot_measures ; https://www.vote411.org/ballot