State Amendments and what they really mean

We are down to the wire! It is officially VOTING TIME!
Early voting has begun and the polls have been bustling; absentee ballots are being mailed in; while some citizens like to wait until THE day, Nov. 3, to go cast their vote.
We all have some very important decisions to make. While most people are continually buzzing about the Presidential election; let’s not forget we also have important local elections to vote on: Clerk of the Court, School Superintendent, County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections, etc. We also have the duty to vote for our: Congressional Representative, State Senator, State Representative, etc.
The hardest decisions, however, seem to be those pesky amendments that keep showing up every two years. The language in these amendments can be confusing.
Every two years, I read and research each amendment; and study the pros and cons. In some instances, my first initial “gut feeling” of a certain way to vote is changed after a long hard study of each one and what they will “give” or “take” as an end result. Sometimes even though something sounds good on the surface, in the long run it may not be what Florida truly needs.
Here are the six Florida Amendments: spelled out; broken down; pros and cons listed; what groups/organizations support the amendment, and why; what groups/organizations oppose it, and why; and how I’m voting.

AMENDMENT 1:
Citizenship Requirement
to Vote in Florida Elections
Ballot Language: “This amendment provides that only United States Citizens who are at least eighteen years of age, permanent residents of Florida, and registered to vote, as provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in a Florida election.”
Currently, the constitution says “every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years old, a permanent resident of the state, and registered to vote in the state can vote.”
A YES vote means: instead of saying EVERY citizen, it will say ONLY a citizen of the United States … “Limit voting in Florida elections to only United States citizens who are at least eighteen years old, permanent Florida residents, and registered to vote in the state.”
A NO vote means: the current wordage would remain the same
This amendment was organized by the Political Action Committee “Florida Citizen Voters,” who say that they want to ensure that non-citizens don’t get to vote in Florida. They also say there is controversy about the extent to which non-citizens are already voting illegally, particularly in states that both issue driver licenses to non-citizens and automatically register everyone with a driver license to vote. These supporters contend that the inclusive language tells us who can vote, but not who can’t vote. That’s why we need the wordage changed.
The opposers of Amendment 1 say that no county in the state of Florida currently allow non-citizens to vote anyway.
Pros: Supporters of this amendment say that the change in words will make the amendment have clear language that defines who can and cannot vote in Florida elections.
Cons: Some say this amendment is a “gimmick” and it will change nothing. They say the group that organized it is just trying to make sure that conservative “anti-immigrant” voters get out and vote in this election.
In researching this amendment, I found a lot of editorial opinions that prompted to vote “no” on this amendment. Mostly for the reason that they felt it would change nothing. However, I am one that does feel that the wordage could be more specific, in order to ensure only United States citizens are allowed to vote; for we truly are seeing other states allowing non-citizens to vote.
I want to help ensure that Florida is not affected by new radical federal laws and to make sure Florida has specific language about who can and cannot vote.
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 1

AMENDMENT 2:
Raising Florida’s Minimum Wage
Ballot Language: “Raises minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective September 30, 2021. Each September 30th thereafter, minimum wage shall increase by $1.00 per hour until the minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30, 2026. From that point forward, future minimum wage increases shall revert to being adjusted annually for inflation starting September 30, 2027.”
A YES vote means - the minimum wage would increase to $15 by 2026, with a $1.46 increase in Sept. 2021 to $10. The tipped minimum wage would also increase to $12 an hour by 2026.
A NO vote means - the current $8.56 minimum wage would stay in place, while continuing to increase with inflation.
This amendment is led by John Morgan (of Morgan and Morgan Law Firm), chair of Florida for a Fair Wage; who was quoted, saying, "Florida needs to pass the Fair Wage Amendment to ensure that all hard-working Floridians can receive a living wage. The 'living wage' is the minimum cost that covers the basic needs of an individual and the needs of their family without government assistance.”
The opposers to this amendment say that higher labor costs associated with the incremental increase to a $15 minimum hourly wage will likely force layoffs, reduced employee hours and/or increased prices to consumers.
"An increase like this would have disastrous impacts on businesses and individuals alike. Business owners will be forced to find solutions to control costs... the most obvious solutions include reducing the number of employees, reducing the number of hours remaining employees work, and seeking labor alternatives like automation."
Pros: Raise the wages of lower-wage workers; stimulate growth in lower wage workers’ communities; possibly reduce lower-wage workers’ dependence on public assistance.
Cons: Greater unemployment, particularly in communities more in need of help; higher wages mean higher costs – meaning companies will be forced to raise their prices on products to compensate for the higher wages; companies will eliminate certain low-wage jobs altogether; massive layoffs of lower-wage workers who are the same people that this measure is designed to help.
As tempting as it is to want to ensure that workers are paid more and that families can make more money, it is very important to think about businesses and realize (especially right now) businesses are struggling to just stay alive; to force more expenditures on them might surely kill many of them off. When this Amendment was first promoted by Florida For A Fair Wage COVID-19 wasn’t an issue.
According to Florida Tax Watch, “Increasing the hourly minimum wage to $15 will affect small businesses more significantly than large businesses. Small businesses are more likely to experience the negative impacts of a $15 minimum wage because they are less likely to have the cash reserves or profit margins to absorb the increase in labor costs than larger businesses. This is important because Florida is home to 2.5 million small businesses. These small businesses employ 41.6 percent of all private sector employees and represent nearly 44 percent of Florida’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Further, nearly three of every four new jobs in Florida are created by these small businesses.”
A $15-hour minimum wage will not just hurt small businesses - it will also adversely impact Florida’s agricultural industry. As farm wages increase, many agricultural workers will likely lose their jobs as a result. Along with increasing the costs of providing government services, with local school districts expected to face the greatest annual cost increases.
I feel if this amendment passes, we will soon see many business and restaurants going out of business, companies raising their prices on products to compensate for the higher wages, fewer people being hired and the job duties being added to the current employees and more local government taxes.
My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 2

AMENDMENT 3:
All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for
State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet
Ballot Language: “Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law. Effective January 1, 2024.”
A YES vote means: all candidates (for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet) would appear on the same primary ballot (regardless of party affiliation) with the top two vote-getters advancing to a runoff in the general election (regardless of party affiliation.) All registered voters could cast ballots in both elections. (All registered voters include everyone: Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, No Party, Independent, etc.)
A NO vote means: a top-two primary system is opposed, therefore keeping the current primary system in place, in which each party votes for their own party, and the winner advances to the general election.
Under Amendment 3, in cases where only two candidates qualify for the primary election, the primary would be canceled and both candidates would advance to the general election, for voting.
If Amendment 3 passes, the top-two open primary system would be used beginning in 2024.
All Voters Vote, Inc. is leading the campaign in support of Amendment 3 and is quoted as saying, "Florida is among only a handful of states that do not allow all qualified voters to participate in primaries. How backwards is this? Almost a third of voters are registered as neither Democrats nor Republicans."
Opposers of Amendment 3 include the Democrat and Republican Parties of Florida and also the Florida's Legislative Black Caucus expressed their opposition to the amendment, citing the potential for the dilution of black constituents' vote share in what would be an open primary, with the ultimate concern that it could lead to less elected officials of color.
Pros: To be more inclusive and to allow everyone to participate in the primary process as opposed to just Democrats and Republicans. Open primaries would allow independent voters (25%+ of all voters) to also take part in the candidate selection process.
Cons: Opponents contend that Amendment 3 is misleading because it fails to detail how parties could internally select candidates to appear on the primary ballot. Candidates would be allowed to run under a preferred party affiliation and would not require approval from the party itself. They also say in those instances where the top-two vote getters in the primary election are from the same political party, voters in the general election would have less, not more, choice in the general election.
I believe opening the primaries up to all registered voters will boost voter participation in primary elections for governor, as well as those for attorney general, agriculture commissioner, chief financial officer and state legislators. Currently, 21 states use the open primary system for congressional and state-level offices (according to Ballotpedia.) The open primary system would allow more voters’ voices to be heard and keep certain parties from being able to hand-pick a party nominee. It will also keep some candidates from using the loophole using bogus write-in candidates. (Which I’ve seen done on local levels before - thus keeping thousands of voters from casting a vote!)
Open primaries, in my opinion, is a fair way for ALL voters to have a choice in their elected officials.
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 3

AMENDMENT 4:
Voter Approval of Constitutional Amendments
Ballot Language: “Requires all proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections, instead of one, in order to take effect. The proposal applies the current thresholds for passage to each of the two elections.”
A YES vote means: that a voter-approved constitutional amendment would have to be approved by voters at TWO elections. So, it would have to be approved by 60% of voters at one election (like normal) and then again at the next general election it would need to be approved by 60% of voters again.
A NO vote means: the current system would stay in place - requiring 60% of voter approval after one general election
Keep Our Constitution Clean PC is leading the campaign in support of Amendment 4 and was quoted as saying, "By doing pass-it-twice, we think we can reduce the amount of ... whimsical constitutional amendments. [In Florida], there have been more than 140 constitutional amendments [since the 1960s]. The United States Constitution, which has been around since the 1700s, has only been amended 27 times."
Opponents of Amendment 4 include the ACLU of Florida and the Florida League of Women Voters. They state, “it is a cynical political effort to obstruct voters’ ability to pass future constitutional amendments, even those with support from a supermajority of voters.”
Pros: Proponents of this measure believe that the current process for amending Florida’s Constitution is too easy, and too many constitutional amendments pass without sufficient scrutiny. Nevada is the only state that currently has a pass-it-twice requirement for constitutional amendments. A total of 12 of 14 constitutional amendments passed during the second general election after having passed the first in Nevada. Supporters cite that Amendment 4 would limit the amount of frivolous amendments brought forth and ultimately passed.
Cons: Opponents of the initiative cite that Florida already requires a super-majority (60%) of voters to approve an amendment for it to pass. Opponents say that adding a requirement for the amendment to be placed on another ballot in four years would not significantly change the number of amendments that ultimately pass. It would, however, slow the process and keep important measures a large portion of Floridians agree with from being implemented in a timely fashion.
I, personally, agree with everyone on the “pros” side of this debate. I feel it is too easy to amend the constitution. It seems every two years we have an over-abundance of people who want to change our constitution and it should not be easy to do! Not to mention, a lot of amendments are strategically put onto the “off-year” elections where voter turn-out is not as high, in order to pass something more easily, along with grouping three or four items together into one Amendment, thus trying to “squeak” something by. Making the amendments go through two voting cycles will ensure exactly what Floridians want!
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 4

AMENDMENT 5:
Extend “Save-Our-Homes” Portability Period
for Homestead Property Tax Assessment
Ballot Language: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2021, to increase, from 2 years to 3 years, the period of time during which accrued Save-Our-Homes benefits may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead.”
Currently, the state Constitution gives a person two years to transfer “Save Our Home" benefits, which range from $25,000 to $50,000 in homestead property tax exemptions, over to their new “homestead.” Amendment 5 would extend that period by a year to three years.
A YES vote means: extending the period in which someone may transfer Save-Our-Homes benefits, to a new homestead property, from two years to three years.
A NO vote means: keeping the current Save-Our-Homes benefits transfer period to two years.
Amendment 5 was introduced as House Joint Resolution 369 by Florida Sen. Rick Roth (R) on January 14, 2020. The state House approved the amendment unanimously with two Democrat representatives not voting on March 9, 2020. The state Senate approved the amendment unanimously on March 11, 2020.
Homesteads, or primary residences, are subject to property taxes in Florida, which must be assessed at just value, except that every primary residence is eligible for a $25,000 homestead exemption. Another $25,000 homestead exemption is applied to homesteads that have an assessed value of more than $50,000 up to $75,000. The homestead exemption reduces the taxable value of a property. (As per BallotPedia)
Pros: A three-year timetable would give ample time for a homeowner to transfer their Save-Our-Homes benefits and will have the ability to reduce their property taxes. Depending on the size of a home, if the amendment were to pass homeowners can expect to save anywhere from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars.
Cons: Opposers argue that this amendment would decrease local property taxes by an annual $1.8 million in the next fiscal year and would eventually grow to $10.2 million annually, a little more than one-third of these revenue losses ($3.8 million) would be attributable to school districts and other local governments (cities, counties, and special districts) would lose $6.4 million.
They also argue that two years is an acceptable time period to move from one home to another and to transfer those homestead property savings. Another major argument is while Save Our Homes has saved homesteaders billions of dollars in the years since being implemented, it has also shifted much of that tax burden to other properties, including commercial, second, and vacation homes, non-homestead residential property owners, and rental property.
This amendment will save homeowners thousands of dollars. However, it will result in a tax shift to the government for loss of revenue. With those two thoughts in mind, I believe the increased fairness provided to the homeowner far exceeds the loss caused to the government.
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 5

AMENDMENT 6:
Homestead Property Tax Discount
for Surviving Spouses of Deceased Veterans
Ballot Language: “Provides that the homestead property tax discount for certain veterans with permanent combat-related disabilities carries over to such veteran’s surviving spouse who holds legal or beneficial title to, and who permanently resides on, the homestead property, until he or she remarries or sells or otherwise disposes of the property. The discount may be transferred to a new homestead property of the surviving spouse under certain conditions. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2021.”
Currently, the homestead property tax discount for veterans expires upon their death and is not extended to their spouses. This amendment would extend homestead property tax discounts to the spouse of a deceased veteran and allow them to keep the discounts that they are already receiving.
A YES vote: would mean that a homestead property tax discount may be transferred to the spouse of a deceased veteran (who had suffered from permanent combat-related disabilities.)
A NO vote: would mean that the homestead property tax discount may not be transferred to the spouse of a deceased veteran.
The amendment was sponsored by Florida Rep. Sam Killebrew (R). The measure was passed unanimously in both chambers of the Florida State legislature .
It is opposed by League of Women Voters of Florida.
Pros: This amendment would transfer the homestead property tax discount to the surviving spouse until they remarry, sell, or otherwise do away with the property. Many say this is a drop in the bucket, compared to the real needs of Florida’s military families.
Cons: League of Women Voters of Florida: "[Amendment 6 would] reduce property tax revenue available for funding local schools and other services like police, fire and infrastructure; add tax law to the Florida Constitution making it difficult to alter in response to changing or emergency economic conditions; and limit the ability of local governments to control their budgets based on their county needs."
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 6