What It States

Amendment 1 states that, “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.”

Background

Up until 1998, school board elections in the State of Florida had political affiliations for candidates. This changed when voters elected to ratify an amendment in 1998 to make elections non-partisan. As of 2024, 41 of the 50 states have their school board elections that are non-partisan. As of now, political parties can endorse a candidate for a school board election, like when the Collier County GOP endorsed school board candidates Tom Henning and Pam Cunningham in their respective elections in August. Notably, Florida is a closed primary state. This means that the roughly four million Floridians who are registered under the No Party Affiliation would not be able to vote in primaries for candidates in the August election.

Voting Yes

Voting yes on this amendment would lead to school board elections being political starting in 2026. Notably, this change would not affect the current school board election occurring in 2024.

Who Supports Voting Yes?:

The Florida legislature voted in a majority to support the ratification of this amendment.

Voting No

A no vote would keep school board elections non-partisan, the way it has been for over a quarter-century in Florida.

Who Supports Voting No?:

Some of the groups who advise voting no on the amendment include: League of Women Voters of Florida, NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida National Organization for Women and the National Council of Jewish Women.

What It States:

Amendment 2 states, “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.”

Background:

Amendment 2 has two main segments, each dealing with different issues regarding hunting and fishing in the State of Florida. The first part of the amendment is about making fishing and hunting a “constitutional right”. In 2002, a Florida law passed that made fishing, hunting and game a, “valued part of cultural heritage” in Florida. However, this new amendment would elevate fishing and hunting to constitutional right status. The second part of the amendment wants to put in writing that hunting and fishing are the best way to “manage and control” wildlife including sea life. In theory, hunting games and fishing should reduce overpopulation of animals and especially invasive species. Florida’s recent problems with Burmese Pythons could be an animal that could be prevented from growing if this were to pass.

As of right now, there are 23 states with similar constitutional amendments in effect. Vermont became the first territory to then state to implement one back in 1777. Vermont remained the only state with a law like this until the latter part of the 20th century. Of the states that have proposed this amendment to a vote, only one state has had voters vote no on the proposition. That one state was Arizona in 2010 who voted no with roughly 56% of the vote.

Voting Yes:

Voting yes would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in the State of Florida. Additionally, this amendment would make fishing and hunting the “preferred method” of animal control.

Who Support Voting Yes?:

Various different hunting and fishing organizations have put their support behind this amendment. A few of the groups who endorse voting yes on Amendment 2 are the: American Sportfishing Association, National Shooting Sports Association, National Deer Association, Florida Airboat Association, Florida Guides Association and the Coastal Conservation Association.

Voting No:

A no vote on Amendment 2 would keep hunting and fishing the way it is currently in the State of Florida. Hunting and fishing would not be protected in the Florida Constitution, but the 2002 Statue would still be in place that “preserves” fishing and hunting for Floridians.

Who Supports Voting No?:

Some of the groups against this amendment are: Animal Wellness Action, Humane Society of the United States, World Animal Protection, Paws and Recreation, Bear Defenders and Save-a-Turtle.org.

What it States:

“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 an effective date.”

Background:
Back in 2016, Floridians voted overwhelmingly to allow medical marijuana to be legal in the state. The amendment, which received 71% of the vote, paved the way for medical marijuana shops to open across the Sunshine State. Notably, marijuana and medical marijuana are both banned by the federal government. Despite this, 38 of the 50 states have medical marijuana legal, including Florida. Recreational marjuana has been legalized in 24 of the 50 states.

Legalizing marijuana could bring at least two-hundred million dollars worth of tax revenue to the state government. Additionally, the State of Florida could add an excise tax on marijuana, which would only increase the tax revenue that the state could get. Traditionally, excise taxes have been put on things like alcohol and tobacco.

Voting Yes:

A yes vote on Amendment 3 would pave the way for recreational marijuana in the State of Florida. It would eliminate the need for a medical marijuana card to get marijuana, which has been required in the state since recreational marijuana has been legal.

Who Supports Voting Yes?:

Most notably, former President Donald Trump has publicly said he would vote in favor of Amendment 3. In addition to the former President, the Democratic Party of Florida also endorsed a yes vote on Amendment 3. Numerous cannabis corporations have also financially supported the amendment, some of which include companies like Trulieve, Verano Holdings and Green Thumb Industries.

Voting No:

A no vote would keep marijuana the way it currently is in the State of Florida. Medical marijuana would keep its current legalization. Additionally, Floridians would need a medical marijuana card to access medical marijuana.

Who Supports Voting No?:

Unlike the former President, much of the Republican Party supports voting no. Firstly, the Republican Party of Florida recommends a no vote on Amendment 3. Furthermore, prominent Florida Republicans, Ron DeSantis, Rick Scott, and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody all have endorsed voting no on Amendment 3.

What It Says:

“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.”

Background:

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision made in 1973 that made the right to an abortion legal everywhere in the United States. This decision stayed all the way into 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This lets states decide on their own laws surrounding the legality of abortion. After Roe v. Wade was struck down, Florida did institute an abortion ban at fifteen weeks. A year later, Florida went further by banning abortions all the way up to six weeks, but this time included provisions for rape and the life of the mother.

Laws similar to the ones Florida has passed have passed in a number of states, leading some groups to call for constitutional amendments state by state that would help constitutionally protect the right to an abortion. Since 2022 many states have put amendments on the ballot that hoped to protect the right to abortions in each respective state. These amendments have been largely approved by voters in each respective state, even in traditional Republican states. Eleven states in 2024 will put an abortion related amendment on their ballot in some form. Of the eleven states putting these amendments on the ballot, it is a diverse mix of states.

As mentioned earlier, the current law in Florida bans abortions after the sixth week. Amendment 4 would not include a certain week that abortion would be banned, but instead legalize abortions until “viability” of the baby. Viability is defined by Florida Statute Title XXIX – Public Health, Chapter 390, 390.011 as, ”stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.”

Voting Yes:

Voting yes on Amendment 4 would ban any law that would, “prohibit” or “restrict” abortions in the State of Florida. Notably, both recent laws from the last two years that Florida has passed would be void if this amendment were to pass.

Who Supports Voting Yes?:

Perhaps the most notable person supporting Floridians voting yes is President Joe Biden. Other groups such as the League of Women Voters of Florida, Think Big America and Women’s Voice of Southwest Florida have thrown their support behind Amendment 4.

Voting No:

Voting no would keep all the current abortion restrictions that are in place as of now. The law passed in 2023, which placed restrictions starting at six weeks would still be in effect as it currently is.

Who Supports Voting No?:

Numerous Republicans have recommended that Floridians vote no on Amendment 4. Some examples include: Former President Donald Trump, current Senator Rick Scott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Additionally, the Republican Party of Florida also supports voting Floridians voting no. Groups like the Florida Right to Life, Priests for Life, Students for Life Action and Florida Family Action all endorse a no vote on Amendment 4.

What it Says:

“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.”

Background:

Before getting to what the amendment wants to do, it is important to understand what homestead exemptions are. Lendingtree defines homestead exemptions as, “when a state reduces the property taxes you have to pay on your home.” Taxes are charged by counties, cities and school districts and they implement the previously mentioned homestead exemptions on the taxes they have on their citizens. For example, in the State of Florida every house can get a homestead exemption of 25,000 dollars.

With this out of the way, it is now important to explain what the Consumer Price Index is. The Department of Labor for the United States Government releases something called the Consumer Price Index that tracks inflation in The United States. The data is released monthly, but for the purpose of this amendment, we will focus on the annual Consumer Price Index that is released once a year. This indicator either indicates the United States economy has undergone inflation or deflation, which is the opposite of inflation.

With both of these things out of the way, the amendment becomes a lot clearer. This amendment proposes that in addition to the previously mentioned 25,000 dollar exemption, that taxes would also include a provision to the current homestead exemption that if there is inflation, that an extra amount would be added to the homestead exemption. Take for example the base homestead exemption of $25,000, and say inflation for this theoretical year is 1%. That would give homeowners an extra $250 exempt from taxes.

As a consequence for reducing taxes on consumers, the state government would receive less tax income. Notably, this amendment would not apply to school district taxes. Some estimates say that if this amendment were to pass, that there would be over 20 million dollars lost in tax revenue by 2026. The same estimates also suggest the lost revenue would increase as years go by. These taxes help fund necessities such as road maintenance, police and fire departments and libraries.

Voting Yes:

A yes vote on Amendment 5 would help increase homestead exemption for homeowners. It would increase the homestead exemption by the annual inflation rate of each respective year.

Who Supports Voting Yes?:

The Florida legislature voted in a majority to support the ratification of this amendment. Additionally, many Republican State Representatives have endorsed the amendment.

Voting No:

A no vote on Amendment 5 would keep homestead exemption the way they are right now.

Who Supports Voting No?:

A few notable groups have endorsed voting no on Amendment 5. These groups include NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida for All and the Florida National Organization for Women. Additionally, the League of Cities of Florida also endorses a no vote.

What it Says:

“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.”

Background:

Currently, people seeking election for statewide positions such as Governor, Attorney General and the Chief Financial Officer can receive public financing for their campaign. In return, candidates must follow a limit of expenditures on their campaign which is roughly 30 million for gubernatorial elections.

In order to qualify for the public financing for their campaign, candidates must meet some criteria. Some of that criteria includes that the candidate must not be running unopposed, agree to previously mentioned spending limits and report financing reports on their campaign.

What the proposed amendment would seek to do is get rid of public funding for state-wide political campaigns. Additionally, the previously mentioned limits on spending for state-wide political campaigns would also cease to exist.

Running political campaigns is incredibly costly, and some opponents of this amendment say that if this amendment were to pass, people who were less well off financially would be less inclined to run for office. Opponents of this amendment point out that richer candidates could just outspend poorer candidates.

Proponents of this amendment point out that public funding for elections is a misuse of taxpayer money and that money could be better spent on other things in the State of Florida such as education. It is worth noting that in the midterm elections of 2022, 13 million was spent on campaign financing by the state. The total budget for the State of Florida was nearly 110 billion dollars.

Voting Yes:

A yes vote would repeal previous Florida laws, and would end both public funding for campaigns and spending limits for state-wide campaigns.

Who Supports Voting Yes?:

A majority of the Florida legislature voted in favor of putting Amendment 6 on the ballot.

Voting No:

A no vote on Amendment 6 would keep state-wide elections publicly financed the way they are. Additionally, campaigns would still have to adhere to spending limits.

Who Supports Voting No?:

Both the Democratic Party of Florida and the Green Party of Florida support a no vote. The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board also supports a no vote. Additionally, the NAACP Florida State Conference and The League of Women Voters of Florida both support voting no.