Propositions, Amendments, Ballot Initiatives, Referendums… whatever your state calls them, it’s time to start sharing information.
We have this first set from commenter Anonymous At Work, who is tackling Arkansas, as well. And we have someone hard at work for the California version. Though CA seems to be slacking this year – there are fewer than 50! :-)
FLORIDA
It’s that time of election season. I enjoy these and have to delve into the rough weeds where creepy things live to figure out whether Ballot Initiatives are annoying, harmful, stupid, or have some value. I did this for a group of friends for a number of years and started for Balloon-Juice when I moved to Florida, where you/us Floridians write a lot of these.
I’m going to list the short title, the complete ballot title, and break down the pros and cons of each of Florida’s five Proposed Constitutional Amendments (which need 60% to pass), and then do the same for Arkansas’s three (which need 50% to pass).
Florida Amendment 1: Partisan School Board Elections
Title: PARTISAN ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDS.— 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.
Summary: Pretty easy summary. Right now, the elections are nominally non-partisan, but that designation has become a fig-leaf in certain areas because of “Moms for Liberty”, an Astro-turfed group run by Republican political operatives originating in Florida. The less said about the founders, the better for the group. This change would enable partisan primaries and partisan designations on the general ballot starting in November 2026.
Support is split largely along partisan lines, with Republicans backing and Democrats opposing.
The main argument FOR the Amendment is removing the fig-leaf that the elections are “non-partisan” when everyone routinely receives flyers and mailers about which party is backing which candidates.
The main arguments AGAINST are pretty much the same, although noting that making it a partisan election diminishes attention to issues in favor of extreme partisan position and partisan loyalty. An additional argument is that almost nowhere else does this. The states that allow it include Louisiana, Tennessee (2021 legislation), and Pennsylvania.
My personal vote will be “No,” but I can understand the other side easily. Making the election partisan does run the risk that national partisan groups can parachute in to Florida, dump a bunch of ad money, and inflame divides. The states that do allow a partisan school board are not the exemplars a state would want to follow either. In particular, the Dover PA partisan school board ended up costing their district millions of dollar in legal fees trying to teach “religious alternative facts” about evolution. You would see such things as this, or as in Oklahoma where the State Superintendent of Schools created a requirement to put a Bible in every classroom to use for “non-religious” instruction; he then set the requirements of the Bible so that only the “Trump Bible” would fit, essentially requiring the state of Oklahoma to spend millions of dollars on a partisan endeavor.
Florida Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish
Title: RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT.—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 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution.
Summary: Twenty-two other states have something like this idea in their state Constitutions, but Florida only has a statutory right. The Amendment takes care to avoid conflicts with Fish & Wildlife, which means it also avoids conflicts with the federal government (i.e. Endangered Species Act) which would work through Florida FWC. The only oddity here is that “including by use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means…” of population control. I honestly have no idea what that means, cannot find reference to it in other literature. What op-eds I’ve tracked down merely state that FWC still retains power, not explaining what that phrase means or does not mean.
Support FOR is an odd mixture of pro-hunting groups and a few organizations that stand to make money from increased hunting and fishing. What is surprising is that it’s not universal among pro-hunting and pro-fishing groups. Support AGAINST is eco-tourists groups, humane and conservation groups, and some home building companies concerned about private property.
My opinion is “No,” but only because I think the drafting is sloppy, poorly-explained, and/or deceptive for some other purpose. Frankly, the state that has the best written Right to Hunt and Fish is Montana, where there are the right comes with 2 important caveats missing here. First, non-interference with private property. Second, an affirmative duty by the state to preserve the right for future generations (aka environmental stewardship). Here, it is unclear to me whether hunting and fishing by “traditional methods” or “as a means of population control” can violate private property or use non-FWC marked public property. I’ll also point out “traditional methods” could be what the Seminoles used or could include use of dynamite, gillnets, seafloor trawlers, and any number of destructive methods, since the “traditional methods” is neither defined nor has any precedent. Like I said at the start, this one is drafted badly for a Constitutional Amendment, either on accident or on purpose.
Florida Amendment 3: Recreational Marijuana
Title: 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.
Support is what you would expect, plus TFG trying to win some votes. Opposition is all state-level Republicans and most Republican Congresscritters. Medicinal Marijuana companies operating under the current state law/regulations are on both sides, depending on whether they want to expand operations (FOR) or protect their current cartelization (AGAINST)
Summary: This Amendment decriminalizes adults 21 and older to grow their own and for companies to buy, grow, sell, transport, etc. both plants/plant-products and “accessories” for personal use by adults. Limit is 3.0 ounces or 5 grams of concentrate. The Amendment goes against both federal law and the US’s international treaty obligations, so enforcement will be a matter of discretion by the President/Attorney General. There could be state regulations that become or are purposefully onerous considering the current state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 against allowing similar ballot measures in the past and the governor and state AG are vehemently opposed to the Amendment.
My opinion is a tentative “Yes” because it would be nice to send a message and would potentially allow for better police resourcing. Without state and local police enforcing federal law, a hostile President would be constrained in what they could do against users. Sellers and professional cultivators would have business opportunities limited based on federal banking laws and being the soft-targets for a hostile President. Given the opposition by state authorities, and the likelihood that voters will elect opponents to state office in 2026, I just don’t see this doing much absent federal action.
Florida Amendment 4: Abortion
Title: 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.
Summary & Opinion: I’m gonna level with you. If you are reading this, I don’t need to explain anything or to give you my take. What I will warn you about is the odious and potentially-illegal “Financial Impact Statement” and other actions undertaken by Republican authorities to scaremonger against the Amendment. The financial impact will not be the eleventy-gazillion dollars the AG wanted, it won’t harm women like the Republican Surgeon General warned, etc. etc.
Florida Amendment 5: Inflation Adjustment to Homestead Tax Exemptions
Title: No title, just a list of changes to allow inflation adjustments each year to the current $25000 homestead property tax exemption
Support is largely a small group of Republican state reps. I don’t think anyone is taking an organized opposition.
Summary: I asked Betty and Watergirl is they knew any background, and I checked a few public sources and legislative texts. This is the best I could do because no one remembers this stuff.
Waaay back, long ago, the Florida Constitution did not provide for a homestead property tax exemption (aka “I live here, ease up on my taxes”) that eases non-school related property taxes. Someone thought to provide a lock-solid, can’t be fiddled-with, Amendment that locked-in an amount of exactly $25,000. While I guess the idea was to prevent the state legislature from lowering the exemption (and thus raising taxes), the obvious consequence was to make any tax relief less and less meaningful over time as inflation chipped away at it. So, now, after 4 different micro-adjustments in 8 years concerning what qualifies for the exemption, how it can move between homesteads over time without resetting property values, or exempting renewable energy or anti-Climate Change measures, we arrive at the FIFTH micro-adjustment in TEN YEARS to allow for an annual indexing of the $25,000 value for inflation.
My opinion is a very firm and very personal “No.” I loathe micro-budgeting and micro-managing laws like this. It clutters the state Constitution, it does not always work as cleanly as supporters believe, and it impedes the state Legislature in doing what the state Legislature should be doing: keeping the laws current with their constituents’ preferences. Honestly, as a former resident of TEXAS and ARKANSAS, with amateur Lege members wielding power for 90 days every 2 years, that’s still what I believe a state Legislature should be doing.
If the current Legislators had any courage or the sense of Florida Man (insult intended), they’d ask voters to allow them to monitor, adjust, and otherwise “find out” about any property taxes or exemptions to property taxes. Cut them too much or make the exemption too big would blow a hole in the state budget. Start exemption school-based property taxes and watch school quality spiral downwards and home values follow. Create too many loopholes, and watch the tax forms balloon and constituents complain about favoritism.
Florida Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns
Title: REPEAL OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING REQUIREMENT.—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.
Support is limited but along partisan lines with Republicans supporting the repeal and Democrats opposing the repeal.
Summary: The Florida state law allowed public campaign financing in 1986 and followed with a raft of adjustments to who qualifies and how via ballot initiative in 1998. This Amendment would strike the portion added in 1998 that allows for public financing as a part of the Constitution. The amount given and subject to spending limits is 30 million dollars for governor races and 15 million dollars for cabinet races. The impact is very limited since most candidates skip public financing.
My opinion is “No.” I prefer to allow for public financing, especially since the costs are pretty limited and the statewide offices to which it applies have a collective action problem: a small number of rich patrons highly impacted and everyone else that are lightly impacted but whose collective interest outweighs the small number. Therefore, in theory, public financing can allow candidates to run for statewide office without depending on rich patrons or national political organizations. It’s a nice theory, if not terribly backed by reality.
THE END.
Angel Matching for October Political Fundraising
Joy in FL
Thanks for this.
I was googling for exactly these things yesterday. Interestingly, I found the clearest statements from the website for Ex-Pat Dems. I saw observations much like yours. It helped me get my mail-in ballot filled out so I can deliver it to the Supervisor of Election’s office tomorrow.
Villago Delenda Est
“Moms for Liberty” = NS-Frauenschaft
Anonymous At Work
@Villago Delenda Est: Believe me, I was biting my tongue the entire time I wrote about Amendment 1 to avoid the snark. Something tells me that the founders would get litigious about the rape charges, lesbian threesome allegations, and swinging.
BCHS Class of 1980
Thanks to AnonAtWork for this work. I was wondering how to vote on the amendments other than 3 and 4. I’m looking to get this done ASAP so I can get it to the PO before Milton comes looking for his stapler. I’ll probably vote as recommended on all of them except the partisan election one. I am so done with the non-partisan fig leaf; just like with ROUSs, I don’t think they exist.
Glory b
For those with Sirius radio, Kamala Harris will do an interview ith Howard Stern on Tuesday.
His interview with Hillary was fantastic. His audience seems to be primarily young > middle aged white men, she should reach out to them.
I listened to the responses they had after his Hillary interview.
Many actually said they couldn’t even remember why they were supposed to have hated her so much & were sorry because she sounded like she’d have really been a great president. Maybe Harris can head them off at the pass.
Anoniminous
So Amendment 2 will allow people armed with high caliber, e.g., 30.06, rifles to wander through suburban neighborhoods blazing away at wild animals.
What could go wrong?
TBone
@Villago Delenda Est: 👍
trollhattan
Katy corner across ‘Murka in Idaho, comes a valuable Republican history lesson.
Geoduck
Washington State has a bunch of garbage initiatives all sponsored by the same rich right-wing chud.
Anonymous At Work
@Anoniminous: Based on time in Ohio, “suburban/urban hunting permits” are a paradox. In places that need to issue such permits to hunters, you do not issue them to hunters. In places where you can issue them to hunters, you do not need to issue them to hunters.
Timill
Tennessee is easy: none. All I have on my ballot are Pres/Veep, US Senator, US House Rep and State House Rep.
Redshift
Virginia doesn’t have anything like this, just constitutional amendments that are placed on the ballot for a vote by being passed by the legislature in two different sessions. It means less direct citizen input, but on the other hand we don’t have to worry about getting people to vote the right was on deceptively worded initiatives.
Fiona
There’s only one question on the Connecticut ballot, and I won’t have to explain which way to vote.
“Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to permit the General Assembly to allow each voter to vote by absentee ballot?”
The wording is a bit of a dodge, Connecticut already allows for absentee balloting with an excuse, this is to allow no excuse absentee balloting.
The last time something like this was on the ballot in 2014, the wording went like this:
“Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to remove restrictions concerning absentee ballots and to permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on the day of an election?”
It failed 48-52.
The wording change, plus the fact that this is a presidential year as opposed to a midterm, should allow this to pass easily this time around.
WaterGirl
How’s it coming over here in Florida?
WaterGirl
@BCHS Class of 1980:
Yes! IT just makes it that much harder to know who to vote for. By design, I imagine.
trollhattan
You hate to see it.
FA-FA-FA-FA-FAFO, dude.
Harrison Wesley
My county Democratic Party newsletter had guidelines to these amendments as well as some local county items. Took all of about five minutes to mark and seal it.
Anonymous At Work
@WaterGirl: Preparing to sing a late-aughts song by Modest Mouse…”Float On”
Mike S. (Now with a Democratic Congressperson!)
As a lifelong Pennsylvanian I will say that partisan schoolboard elections don’t necessarily help you know what candidates stand for or who to vote against because most candidates cross-file and are listed on both the rethuglican and the Democratic ballots and so would appear in the general election in both the R and D column. Up until 2022 It was probably 95% who did this in my school district elections.
In the 2022 election we did have 3 moms-o-“Liberty” types who apparently couldn’t stand the thought of being associated with a (D) that ran only on the (r) side which did make voting easier. Since our locale newspaper was bought up by investors there is no longer any source of info about what most candidate for local offices stand for other than the (Democrat) or (republican) below the name on eth ballot. For many they don’t even have a web site.
WaterGirl
@Mike S. (Now with a Democratic Congressperson!): They should have to pick a side, or choose Independent. They should’t be allow on both sides. Grumble.
MattF
My (Montgomery County Maryland) ballot had two questions to vote on, a ‘reproductive freedom’ State constitutional amendment (an obvious YES) and a two term limit for the county executive (a not-so-obvious NO). NO on the second one because, IMO, this is just a RW ploy against Big Liberalism, and comes up over and over and over again. No thank you.
Anonymous At Work
@MattF: Term limits empower lobbyists and others outside of government by removing any expertise inside of government. Arkansas enacted some harsh term limits and has repeatedly scaled them back once the corruption became clear. Governance is a skill, like automotive repair or heart surgery or colonoscopies.
FastEdD
I can help with California propositions if there are any CA jackals who are interested.
Mrscoachb
Thanks for this…I do have a clarifying question on The FL amendment 3….you state “decriminalizes adults 21 and older to grow their own”… however some of the vote no ads are saying no home growing? Overall this is not the ideal amendment as it is pro Big Weed, I’d prefer something that encouraged small growers….But I think that ship sailed when we passed the medical amendment several years ago. I am voting yes as I am sick of the fees to maintain my medical authorization. $199 every 7 months for the prescription and $75 annually to the state. It’s just a money grab.
PaulB
The Washington State ballot initiatives are easy: No to all, as they’re all either stupid or odious or both.
Initiative 2066: Prohibit state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas. [WTF is wrong with Republicans that they think this is some hill to die on? That they’re doing the stupid, “They’ll pry my gas stove from my cold, dead hands!” BS? Even when nobody is actually proposing that? It’s incandescent light bulbs, low-flow toilets, and Dr. Seuss all over again.]
Initiative 2109: Repeal the capital gains excise tax imposed on long-term capital assets by individuals with capital gains over $250,000. [Won’t someone think of the ~4,000 (actual number from 2023) multi-millionaires who are actually affected by this tax? They’re suffering out here!]
Initiative 2117: Prohibit carbon tax credit trading and repeal provisions of the 2021 Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a state law that provided for a cap and invest program designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 95% by 2050. [Heaven forbid that anyone actually do something to reduce these emissions that are causing such harm. Or to make businesses pay for doing that harm.]
Initiative 2124: Allow all employees and self-employed individuals to opt out of paying the tax and receiving benefits under WA Cares, the state’s long-term services and supports trust health care program. [This is equivalent to allowing people to opt out of Medicare or Social Security, but with a state program which provides long-term health services, including nursing home care and home health care. The theory is that individuals can do so much better in the private market. How many times does this have to be proved false before they get it?]
Doc Sardonic
According to this strange piece of mail that I got, the only 2 amendments that are marked vote YES are the marijuana and women’s health amendments. I call this piece of mail strange because it came from my county Democratic Party organization, I haven’t gotten anything in the mail from them in at least 20 years.
Anonymous At Work
@Mrscoachb: EEK! You are correct. Adults may only use, purchase, and possess
However, the reason I am voting a “soft” YES is because, yeah, some of the medical groups oppose the threat to their cartel but some support since they want to expand their operations, not that they want to lose the cartel. The resulting situation will still depend on the enacting legislation based and approved by a ton of people hostile to the Amendment.
Mrscoachb
@Anonymous At Work: I agree with you it’s ayes. Its not perfect but if it passes it’ll force some reasonableness from the looney FL legislators
John Revolta
Well, we agree on all of these. Whenever I wasn’t sure I just checked the votes in the lege- when all the Dems voted one way and the Repubs went the other, I had my answer. The only exception was the “Right to Hunt” one, which sailed through with support from both sides. I’m against that one anyway because I’m generally anti-hunting and yeah, it also looked like a “thin edge of the wedge” thing.
Betty Cracker
Nice summary — thanks! Bill and I voted recently, and our choices mirrored your recs precisely.
Paul in Jacksonville
The two Florida Supreme Court justices up for retention this year are anti abortion proponents. Both were appointed by DeSantis. All of the local judges on the ballot in Jacksonville were appointed by DeSantis. My mail in ballot rejects the entire lot. On our state constitution amendments, I agree with WG: no, no, yes, yes, no, and no.
VFX Lurker
Looking forward to the Balloon-Juice front page on California props and any tips FastEdD has.
My California vote-by-mail ballot will arrive any day now. The only choices I haven’t made yet are California propositions and city measures.
Betty Cracker
@Paul in Jacksonville: We voted to bounce every judge on the ballot too. All were appointed by either DeSantis or Scott. That’s all I need to know.
Villago Delenda Est
@trollhattan: This Foreman asshole is unfit to hole any public office at any level.
Villago Delenda Est
@Betty Cracker: If I had my way, DeRacist and Scott would both be put on a boat in the Atlantic, and given a choice between electrocution and light snack for Jaws.
WaterGirl
@FastEdD:
pacem appellant contacted me last week and offered to write something up for California, so I think he’s already working on that.
Anonymous At Work
@Betty Cracker: I always vote to bounce judges. Elected judges are horrible and a hold-over from racist practices after the Civil War.
Monica Morse
New York has one state proposal, for a state Equal Rights Amendment, which is an easy Yes.
New York City has five additional proposals. All you really need to know is that they were put on the ballot by Mayor Eric Adams in a subversion of the usual proposal process, and they all transfer power from the City Council to the Mayor, as if there has ever been a New York Mayor who should have had more power.
If you need more reasons to vote No, most of them include multiple unrelated parts, which is suspicious enough. Furthermore, the summaries on the ballot, in addition to not clearly stating all of the effects of the proposal, are sometimes misleading about the parts of the proposal they describe.
Mustang Bobby
A TV station here in Miami just ran a very informative summary of the amendments, explaining them in easy-to-understand terms and clarified for me how to vote: No on 1, 2, 5, and 6, Yes on the rest. 1: School boards should be non-partisan, but now Gov. Batsin D. Belfry, who has appointed a bunch of his hacks to local boards, including Miami-Dade, the third largest school district in the country, and they’re loons. Like we need more MAGA. 2: The hunting and fishing one would basically legalize fishing with dynamite. 5: The homestead exemption tied to inflation is a risky proposition according to people who own their homes (I rent) and it would cost a lot of money that could be used elsewhere. 6 would legalize the PAC system that gave us Rubio, Scott, and DeSantis. FTS.
Sallycat
@Anonymous At Work: Not funny.
wjca
But do have some gems! For example, Prop 34 (RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PERSCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS) is colloquially referred to as “revenge of the landlords”. You could find this . . . obscure, if no downright odd. Certainly not an obvious relationship.
Why the nickname? you ask. Well Prop 33 is about Rent Control. Happens it was dreamed up by, among others, an AIDS health group. So the Apartment Owners group came up with Prop 34, carefully written to target exactly that AIDS group. You gotta dig a bit to figure out what’s going on, but that’s it.
Personally, I’m voting No on both. But it does illustrate the fun you can have with voter initiatives, special interests, and paid signature collectors. Not that I would get rid of citizen initiatives (see what they have done regarding abortion rights elsewhere). You just gotta pay attention when it’s time to vote.
Sallycat
@Mrscoachb:
The Florida constitution’s single subject requirement prevented the drafters from addressing growing at home.
wjca
This.
California put in term limits on legislators to get rid of “career politicians”. And got exactly this kind of legislation-written-by-lobbyists. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet had the wit to reverse our mistake.
maeve
Alaska had two:
Open primary and ranked choice have only been in place for one election cycle but it got Mary Peltola elected.
Mrscoachb
@Sallycat: thank you for the clarification..I don’t h understand the nuances of what it takes to get on the ballot as an amendment…I am hoping the legislature will do something common sense and allow modest home grow levels.
Cheryl from Maryland
@Anonymous At Work: another Montgomery County, MD resident here. The term limits question was sponsored by David Blair, a rich businessman who has failed twice to become County Executive. The current holder of that office, whose early years in politics is from school unions, is the man who defeated Blair twice, has few ties to real estate interests, and is about to complete his second term. Add in the jealousy of some County Council members who have also failed to unseat the Executive, and this is what you get – a bill that is a vendetta.
Anonymous At Work
@Sallycat: Would it help if you knew I was checking the hurricane tracker constantly to see where my house was relative to the Cone of Doom? I am up at 2 am to check updates about whether to flee or not.
Anonymous At Work
@Mrscoachb: “Whatever the state Supreme Court will allow.” We’ve had “Ban indoor vaping and allow offshore oil drilling” as a “single-subject Amendment”. (It failed)
Nelson
@Betty Cracker: That was my response also, but we’re still stuck with DeSantis for now so he’ll just re-appoint the same. At least we’d cause him some annoying redo work.