Six proposed constitutional amendments are on the ballot for all Florida voters this year. Approval of at least sixty percent of the votes cast is required for a measure to pass.
The League of Women Voters of Florida has prepared a complete Guide to Florida’s Proposed Amendments. Rather than duplicate what is available elsewhere, I encourage you to read the League’s guide.
THINGS TO CONSIDER
Constitutions need to be amended over time to update or revise provisions that are inadequate or to respond to the social realities and political needs of the time. However, it is also important to protect the Constitution from short-sighted or partisan amendments.
These are some things to consider when voting to amend the Constitution:
- Does this change belong in the Constitution? Could the same thing be accomplished by the Legislature passing a law? If so, why go this route?
- Who proposed the amendment, and why? If it came about by citizen initiative that required collecting signatures to get on the ballot, who put up the money to do so?
- Similarly, who opposes the amendment and why? Who will be hurt if it passes?
- For amendments that are tax cuts, what will it cost, and how will it be paid for? The state is required to pass a balanced budget, and the two biggest program areas are Human Services and Education. Tax cuts will require spending cuts to offset them, absent a revenue increase elsewhere.
IN THIS POST
- Amendment 1 – Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
- Amendment 2 – Right to Fish and Hunt
- Amendment 3 – Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
- Amendment 4 – Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
- Amendment 5 – Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
- Amendment 6 – Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
AMENDMENT 1
Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
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.
View the full three-page text of proposed Amendment 1 and related links.
For Your Consideration
Florida is one of 41 states with state laws providing for nonpartisan school board elections. (Ballotpedia)
Since Florida’s school board elections are currently nonpartisan, all voters, regardless of party affiliation, may vote in them.
However, in partisan elections, only voters registered with a political party can vote in that party’s primary. That’s because Florida is a closed primary state, one of just ten in the country as of 2/6/24. (NCSL)
In Collier County, 54% of voters are registered as Republicans. The last time voters elected a Democrat to a major state or local government body in a partisan election was more than forty years ago, in 1980, when they elected Mary Frances Kruse to the County Commission. (Naples Daily News)
If Amendment 1 is passed, partisan school board elections in Collier County will exclude the 46% of voters who are registered Democrats, No Party Affiliation, or one of the minor parties. A similar effect would occur in other counties that reliably vote Republican.
In counties that reliably elect Democrats, voters who are registered as Republicans, No Party Affiliation, or one of the minor parties would be excluded from closed Democratic primaries.
Supporters Say …
State Rep. Spencer Roach, the North Fort Myers Republican who sponsored the measure, said that if the amendment is passed, “the average Florida voter is going to have a better idea of who they’re voting for, what their ideology is, what their belief system is, … and whether their values are consistent with what they’re teaching the child at home.” (Miami Herald, 8/26/24)
State Sen. Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) called Amendment 1 a move toward “full-transparency elections.” “There’s no such thing as a non-partisan race anymore,” he said. “These races are partisan, and the only ones that aren’t informed are being tricked. There are games that are played all the time in these races. And what I’m trying to do is pull the bag off of the voters’ heads.” (News Service of Florida)
Opponents Say …
The League of Women Voters of Florida believes that “public education is the cornerstone of our democracy and should be free from outside political influences. We believe that parents, teachers, administrators, community members, and school boards working together without partisan obstruction will make the best educational decisions for students.” (LWVFL)
“Without partisan school board elections, we can have healthy debate, healthy discussions, and then govern with all of that information coming together,” said State Sen. Rosalind Osgood, a South Florida Democrat and former Broward County School Board member. “Now people are going to be pressured to vote based on their party affiliation rather than on the issue,” she said. (Miami Herald)
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Change school board elections to partisan elections beginning in 2026, requiring the candidate’s political party to be designated on the ballot and triggering closed primary elections.
A No vote would:
- Leave school board elections as nonpartisan elections with no closed primaries, allowing all voters to vote for any candidate.
AMENDMENT 2
Right to Fish and Hunt
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.
View the full two-page text of proposed Amendment 2 and related links.
For Your Consideration
The right to hunt and fish is presently in the Florida Statutes, which recognize that “hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians.”
As of 2023, 23 states had constitutional provisions that protected the right to hunt and fish. However, only 11 of these states specify in their constitutions that hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife and fish. (Florida Bar Journal)
“Amending the Florida Constitution to qualify hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing wildlife would tip the scales in favor of broader hunting seasons, more relaxed hunting and fishing regulations, and the authorization of another bear hunt, as FWC did in 2015. Florida voters may elect to support this ballot initiative for the protection it promises to hunting and fishing. However, what many voters may not know is that the second part of the amendment would create an easy path toward authorizing hunts that are contradictory to science and are done before any alternative means are implemented to manage wildlife. The Florida black bear, for example, would be placed especially at risk should the amendment pass.” (Florida Bar Journal)
The initiative was sponsored in the Legislature soon after Oregon, in 2022, tried to pass a ballot initiative criminalizing hunters by charging them with animal abuse.
Supporters Say …
“Amendment 2 definitively protects our right to fish and hunt in the state of Florida. While bans were considered in at least a dozen states last year, including a push to criminalize hunting, fishing, and farming, Amendment 2 will prevent extremists from taking away our rights.” (voteyeson2florida.com)
- Note: Florida is not one of the states that have considered a ban.
Fishing and hunting should be the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife because they allow “for a revenue-generating, sustainable practice to conserve wildlife, vs. a myriad of ideas that afford a cost to the taxpayer while simultaneously blocking hunters and anglers from participating.” (voteyeson2florida.com)
Opponents Say …
There are other means of managing wildlife, such as animal protection, preventative measures, or reproductive management, that should be employed first. (notot2.org)
“This dangerous and misleading amendment will strip Florida citizens of their power to protect and conserve wild animals,” the World Animal Protection said in a statement. “It’s designed to trick voters into allowing some of the cruelest forms of hunting and prevent citizens, scientists, and agencies from protecting wildlife in the future.” (Floridian Press)
“With a fundamental public right in their favor, commercial fishing interests will try to overturn the ban on gill nets again, and these deadly nets could easily find their way back into Florida’s water.” (James C. Scott, chapter chair of Sierra Club Florida and campaign manager for No To 2, via Miami Herald)
The issue with hunting being the “preferred means” of management, Myriam Parham, president of Florida Voices for Animals, told Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, is it makes hunting the first choice rather than a last resort or merely a recreational activity.
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida and the preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.
A No vote would:
- Not establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, but the 2002 Florida statute preserving the right to hunt and fish would remain in place.
AMENDMENT 3
Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
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.
View the full four-page text of proposed Amendment 3 and related links.
For Your Consideration
Big Business
- The U.S. cannabis market size was estimated at $33.6 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a rate of 12.1% from 2024 to 2030. (Grand View Research)
- The industry eyes Florida’s 17 million people 21 and older, an ever-growing population, 140.6 million tourists, and cross-border buyers from Georgia and Alabama. The Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research estimates the recreational market at $2.7 billion to $6.1 billion on top of the medical market. “It’s one of the best markets in the country,” says Matt Darin, CEO of the New York-based marijuana company Curaleaf, which has 62 stores in Florida. (Florida Trend)
- Supporters of Amendment 3, led by the Smart & Safe Florida PAC, received $90.44 million through Aug. 30. Of that amount, $55 million was from Trulieve Cannabis Corp , and $ 3 million was from Curaleaf. (Florida Division of Elections)
- Amendment 3 is the most expensive recreational marijuana ballot measure ever, even surpassing California’s 2016 Proposition 64. (Ballotpedia)
Public Safety
- Three ounces of marijuana, whose possession would be allowed under Amendment 3, is an amount equivalent to roughly 150 joints. (RiseCannabis.com) By comparison, California’s Proposition 64 allows adults to possess up to one ounce.
- The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment warned about the dangers associated with state-by-state legalization. Specifically, it focused on THC potency, organized crime, and youth edible consumption. THC is the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis. (DEA Report)
- While the leading suppliers of marijuana to U.S. markets are cannabis growers and processors operating inside the United States, the black market for marijuana continues, with substantial trafficking by Mexican cartels and Chinese and other Asian organized crime groups profiting from illegal cultivation and sales, as well as exploitation of the “legal” market. (DEA Report)
- “Older adults represent a vulnerable age group for cannabis use due to interactions with medications, risky driving, cannabis-related mental health impacts, and increased possibility of falls and memory issues,” said Anne Fernandez, Ph.D., an addiction psychologist at the University of Michigan Addiction Center and Department of Psychiatry. (University of Michigan Department of Psychiatry)
- There are 399 drugs known to interact with cannabis, along with one alcohol/food interaction. (Drugs.com)
Supporters Say …
Supporters claim that, unlike other states that have legalized recreational marijuana for adults, Florida’s Amendment 3 has guardrails to ensure that public spaces will remain smoke-free, with the same restrictions as tobacco, there will be laws to enforce against smoking in undesignated areas, and legalization will allow “No Smoking” rules to be established and enforced.
In addition, according to Safe & Smart Florida, the sponsor of the amendment:
- Legalizing marijuana has been associated with a significant decrease in intimate partner violence.
- Legalizing marijuana has also led to a decrease in gang violence and hurt Mexican cartels, which now have a smaller market in the US.
- Legalization allows for quality control and regulation, ensuring that consumers have access to safer products.
- Tax revenues from the cannabis industry for federal and state governments are projected to reach $431 million annually if adult use of marijuana is legalized.
These testimonials are on Smart & Safe Florida’s Freedom Doesn’t Stink webpage:
- “When Amendment 3 passes, adults who choose to consume marijuana will be safer as a result because simple cannabis products, legally purchased, won’t contain those dangerous additives. My deputies won’t have to spend our limited resources on arresting or otherwise prosecuting adults for simply possessing or consuming small amounts of marijuana. This will allow us to focus on preventing serious violent crimes or crimes involving deadly drugs like cocaine, fentanyl, and meth.” – Gadsden County Sheriff Morris Young
- “Just as I worked diligently in the Florida Legislature to ban smoking at our state’s public beaches, I am committed to ensuring our public spaces remain smoke-free.” – Republican Florida State Senator Joe Gruters
Opponents Say …
“We should decriminalize low-level marijuana possession, a move many counties and municipalities in Florida have already taken. Amendment 3, however, would enact an entirely different policy by fully legalizing commercial marijuana sales. Our state can enact criminal justice reform without commercializing a new addiction-for-profit industry.” (Former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala in Miami Herald)
With a unanimous thumbs up, Collier commissioners approved a resolution opposing Amendment 3, which would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Florida. (Naples Daily News)
The Florida Sheriff’s Association is strongly opposed to the legalization and commercialization of recreational marijuana. (Resolution 2024-01)
Opponents say the right to use and sell marijuana should not be enshrined in our State Constitution, which bypasses the legislative process.
They point out that no time, place, or manner restrictions are written into the amendment, so it does not prohibit public smoking of recreational marijuana. It would be up to the Legislature to do so.
Opponents also note that tobacco manufacturers have been held liable for harm caused by their products. They ask why the amendment specifically grants Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers criminal and civil immunity.
“While it may seem like a harmless amendment, legalizing recreational marijuana will have destructive long-term effects on our communities, especially our youth and those battling mental health issues. Amendment 3 is falsely promoted as having economic benefits like job creation or increased tax revenue. However, these benefits are not only overstated but are overshadowed by the dangers and social costs associated with the amendment. It’s not smart to risk Florida’s future on a drug that will do more harm than good.” (Bill Prummell, Charlotte County Sheriff)
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Legalize recreational marijuana use in Florida by adults 21 years old and older, allowing individuals to possess up to three ounces of marijuana and authorizing existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute marijuana products and accessories, and
- Allow the Florida Legislature to enact additional legislation restricting where people can smoke and to license other entities to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute marijuana products and accessories.
A No vote would:
- Not legalize marijuana for adult recreational use in Florida and maintain the current regulations for medical use.
AMENDMENT 4
Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
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.
View the full one-page text of proposed Amendment 4 and related links.
For Your Consideration
Amendment 4 would make Florida’s six-week ban, which took effect on May 1, 2024, unconstitutional.
Voters should be aware that advertisements and claims about Amendment 4 should be considered carefully, as they contain a number of inaccuracies or misstatements of fact.
For example, see Fact Check: Florida’s Amendment 4 (PolitiFact), and FACT CHECK: ‘No on Amendment 4’ political ad. Are the claims true? (WPTV)
In response to claims by Amendment 4 opponents, according to the Florida LWV Voter Guide to Proposed Florida Amendments:
- The amendment does not mandate unlimited abortion in Florida.
- The amendment does not override parental notification for an abortion in Florida.
- In the State of Florida, viability is defined by Florida Statute as the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures. (Title XXIX – Public Health, Chapter 390, 390.011)
Supporters Say …
Supporters say Florida’s current abortion ban forces women to wait until the brink of death to get care, threatens to jail doctors for treating their patients, bans abortion before many women even realize they are pregnant, and has no real exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the woman. (yeson4florida.org)
The Florida LWV “supports every woman’s right to access affordable, high-quality reproductive health care, including access to abortion services and birth control. Public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the constitutional right to privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices. (lwvfl.org)
These testimonials from healthcare providers in support of Amendment 4 are on yeson4florida’s website:
- “I took an oath to act in the best interest of my patients. But Florida’s extreme abortion ban puts women’s lives at risk and threatens to jail doctors for treating our patients.” Dr. Furgang, Florida Doctor
- “As a doctor, and as a Catholic, my duty and oath is to protect my patients…I believe in my faith, and I also believe in Amendment 4.” Dr. Grande, Florida OB-GYN
- “A politician is good at politics, not medicine. This isn’t about politics.” Dr. Early, a Florida Doctor and Registered Republican
The website also provides several examples of real-life consequences of the current abortion ban.
Opponents Say …
The votenoon4florida.com website opposes Amendment 4 because it says:
- Unlike other Amendments, Amendment 4 does not define any of its key terms. For example, “viability,” “health care provider,” “patient’s health,” or how serious a health concern would need to be to allow exceptions for late-term abortions. These uncertainties create loopholes resulting in more abortions later in pregnancy than voters intend.
- Amendment 4 goes TOO FAR by allowing late-term abortions, far beyond when science says the baby is capable of feeling pain.
- Amendment 4 would overturn current laws requiring a parent’s consent BEFORE a minor can have an abortion, thereby making abortion the only medical procedure that can be performed on a minor without a parent’s permission.
Again, see above re: fact-checking.
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Prevent any law from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying, or restricting abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.
A No vote would:
- Not provide a constitutional right to abortion before viability and leave Florida’s current 6-week abortion ban in place.
AMENDMENT 5
Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
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.
View the full eight-page text of proposed Amendment 5 and related links.
For Your Consideration
Property tax rates (millage rates) are set by counties, school districts, cities, and special districts. The “homestead exemption” reduces the taxable value of a property.
A primary residence is eligible for a $25,000 homestead exemption from all property taxes. Another $25,000 homestead exemption is applied for a homestead’s value between $50,000 and $75,000, which exempts that amount from all property taxes except school district taxes.
Amendment 5 would change this second exemption from its current $25,000 flat amount by tying it to fluctuations in yearly inflation. As a result, the amount of the tax benefit would go up as inflation goes up.
On the one hand, the increased exemption would lower a homeowner’s taxes. On the other hand, lower taxes mean less money for local governments. The choice is between giving up the reduction in taxes or giving up the city and county services people are accustomed to — they can’t have it both ways, said Aubrey Jewett, Ph.D. and a professor at the University of Central Florida. (WFSU.com)
A state analysis found that local governments, excluding school districts, could lose more than $111 million annually by 2028 if Amendment 5 is adopted. (Miami Herald)
Supporters and critics of the proposed amendment are split down party lines. Among House Democrats, five were in favor, and 29 were opposed. Among House Republicans, 81 were in favor, and none were opposed. (Ballotpedia)
Supporters Say …
“It will benefit Floridians, especially the ones that have issues with paying for their homes – the seniors and people who have lower incomes,” said state Rep. Alina Garcia (R-Miami). (Miami Herald)
“Do you think the counties and the cities need the additional money, or do you think homeowners need the additional money so that they can continue to put food on the table for their kids?” State Sen. Debbie Mayfield (R-Brevard County) said. WFSU.com)
Opponents Say …
Tax cuts mean less money for local governments, which might resort to raising millage rates to cover the shortfall. “If there is an increase in taxes, it’s going to impact everyone, including renters, who would not benefit from the homestead exemption,” said State Sen. Geraldine Thompson (D-Orange County). (WFSU.com)
Amendment 5 would “deepen inequality in Florida,” “lock in Florida’s abysmal investment in public services,” and make reforms to the state’s tax system and investments “nearly impossible. It would tie legislators’ hands and put up unnecessary hurdles”. (Florida Policy Institute)
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Increase the homestead exemption amount each January 1, beginning 2025, if the Consumer Price Index increases, thereby reducing the amount of property taxes on primary residences and reducing the amount of tax dollars available for county, city, and special district programs and services.
A No vote would:
- Leave the current homestead exemption amount as is.
AMENDMENT 6
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
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.
View the full one-page text of the proposed Amendment 6 and related links.
For Your Consideration
Florida is one of twelve states with a public campaign finance program for candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor. (Ballotpedia; NCSL)
Florida first passed a public campaign financing law in 1986 and it is still on the books today. As stated in §106.31 Fla. Stat. (2024) (which would be repealed if this amendment is passed):
The Legislature finds that the costs of running an effective campaign for statewide office have reached a level which tends to discourage persons from becoming candidates and to limit the persons who run for such office to those who are independently wealthy, who are supported by political committees representing special interests which are able to generate substantial campaign contributions, or who must appeal to special interest groups for campaign contributions. The Legislature further finds that campaign contributions generated by such political committees are having a disproportionate impact vis-a-vis contributions from unaffiliated individuals, which leads to the misperception of government officials unduly influenced by those special interests to the detriment of the public interest. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the purpose of public campaign financing is to make candidates more responsive to the voters of the State of Florida and as insulated as possible from special interest groups.
In 1998, the law was added to the state constitution with 64% of the vote.
The cost of the program ranges from $4 million to $13 million per election cycle, of a Florida budget of more than $116 billion. (SJR 1114 Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement)
Supporters Say …
“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.” State Sen. Travis Hutson (R-Palm Coast) (WESH.com)
Opponents Say …
“Public financing encourages a more diverse pool of candidates to participate in elections,” said Marcus McCoy, pastor of Orlando’s Greater Refuge Memorial Church, speaking as state outreach director for Equal Ground Action Fund. (WESH.com)
Yes or No?
A Yes vote would:
- Repeal Section 7, Article VI from the Florida Constitution (passed in 1998) and repeal the Florida Election Campaign Financing Act, ending Florida’s public campaign financing program and spending limits for publicly-funded candidates for Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer, and Commissioner of Agriculture.
A No vote would:
- Leave the current public campaign financing program, including spending limits for publicly-funded candidates, in place.
For More About the Amendments
- League of Women Voters of Florida 2024 Voter Guide
- Ballotpedia – Florida 2024 Ballot Measures
- James Madison Institute 2024 Florida Amendment Guide