The 2024 Florida constitutional amendments

What they really mean
(And my opinion)

Official Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5.
We have very important decisions to make for our individual counties and for the state of Florida. After Tuesday, Nov. 5, more than 10 million Floridians will have cast their votes, not only for the U.S. President, but also 29 members of Congress, 120 members of the State House and 20 of the 40-member Florida Senate. The most confusing decisions, however, seem to be the amendments that show up every two years. The language in these amendments can be confusing.

Each amendment proposal needs at least 60 percent of the Florida votes to be enshrined in the Florida Constitution.

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, it may not be what Florida truly needs in the long run.
Here are this year’s six Florida Amendments: spelled out; broken down; pros and cons listed; what supporters say is good about the amendment; what opponents say is bad about the amendment; and how I’m voting, and why.

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.”

In short – this amendment would change Florida’s Constitution and would require all school board candidates to run in a partisan election; rather than running as nonpartisan candidates, as they do now. Each candidate would be required to disclose if they are Republicans, Democrats or members of another party. If approved, this amendment would take effect in 2026.

This amendment made it to the ballot with 66.38% of the Florida House of Representatives voting Yes and 72.5% of the Florida State Senate voting Yes.

A yes vote would allow parties to nominate their own candidates for these elections and permit candidates to have their political affiliation listed on the ballot.

A no vote would keep in place the Florida constitutional requirement that school board election candidates must remain nonpartisan and cannot run under a political party.

Supporters say – It is about transparency and giving the voters as much information about a candidate as possible; and there is no such thing as a non-partisan race anymore – the only ones that are not informed are being tricked; and it is fiction that these races are nonpartisan and voters should have the right to know the ideology of the candidates that they are voting on. 

Opponents say - school board elections should remain nonpartisan, allowing all voters to choose a candidate to be on the general election ballot; and identifying candidates with their party affiliation would close primaries, thereby limiting full participation in the election process.

My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 1

My Reasoning: I too agree that these races are not a true nonpartisan race. We are all adults and all have opinions on every topic in life. Just because someone says they are “non-partisan” does not make it true. I think it is important to know everything there is to know about a candidate, that you are about to vote on.
When I turned 18 and registered to vote, Madison County was probably 75% (or more) registered Democrats. Back then most people registered as Democrats just so they could vote in the majority of elections. It didn’t mean they had Democrat “thoughts,” it just meant they registered that way because the majority did and they could vote in more races. However, through the years, that has changed drastically and the majority of people register with the party they affiliate with, through their thoughts and actions. This scenario holds the point of – just because school board members are currently TOLD to show “non-partisan” it does not mean they actually are; and we, as voters, should have as much transparency as possible on who we are voting on.

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 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution.”

In Short – “Florida Amendment 2 would guarantee that hunting, fishing, and wildlife taking, including traditional methods, remain preserved in the state constitution as public rights and preferred means of wildlife management. It would not prevent regulations on game seasons, bag limits, wildlife-taking methods, or the protection of certain species.  This amendment will make little change to Florida’s current policy and economic landscape in hunting and fishing. The law already allows hunting and fishing, including traditional methods. If Amendment 2 passes, the state will still be able to regulate hunting and fishing the same way it always has, with seasons, bag limits, and bans on certain species like bears. The inclusion of “traditional methods” includes only killing and taking methods currently legal and has no retroactive power to re-legalize things like gill nets. However, it may prevent any further regulation of killing or capturing methods in the future. Using hunting as the “preferred” method of population management may interfere with more effective methods of control like habitat modification or relocation, but ultimately won’t prevent them if they become necessary.” (Reason Foundation at reason.org)

This amendment made it to the ballot with 97.47% of the Florida House of Representatives voting Yes and 95% of the Florida State Senate voting Yes.

A yes vote would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Florida State Constitution. A state constitutional right to hunt or fish would make it harder for legislators to create laws that would ban or restrict various forms of hunting or fishing.

A no vote means that the state legislature can more easily place restrictions on Floridians’ hunting and fishing activities. Such restrictions would likely be part of an effort to conserve various wildlife species or areas.

Supporters say – Amendment 2 provides the fundamentals of conservation. "Anytime wildlife populations should be managed, be it to control population or human interactions, hunting and angling should be considered first," voteyeson2fliorida.com said. "Doing this allows 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."
And - It protects Florida's economy. "Saltwater and freshwater fishing generate $13.8 billion in annual economic impact for Florida and support 120,000 jobs," VoteYeson2Florida.com said. "Hunting provides another $2 billion annual economic impact and supports 14,300 jobs."
Supporters also state this amendment will permanently preserve Floridians’ right to fish and hunt. For generations, Floridians have used fishing and hunting as a means to provide for themselves and their families.

Opponents say – is a threat to wildlife and that "even though the planet has lost 69% of its wildlife over the past 50 years, this amendment would create a fundamental right in the Florida Constitution to Hunt and Fish using 'traditional methods. This ill-advised amendment could be used to override protections for fish stocks such as effectively nullifying the prohibition on Gill Nets that are a wall of death in the sea.” Opponents also say that by establishing hunting as the 'preferred means' of wildlife management in Florida’s constitution, Amendment 2 could also pave the way for senseless trophy hunting of species like black bears, ignoring proven non-lethal conflict prevention methods that are more humane and effective, such as the management of trash and other food attractants.

My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 2

My Reasoning: Hunting and fishing will ALWAYS be a means of feeding our family (not just recreational). Hunting and fishing bans were considered in at least a dozen states in 2022. So far, 23 states have passed a constitution Right To Fish and Hunt amendment (Florida is not one of those states yet). Amendment 2 protects our right to fish and hunt in the state of Florida. This amendment will help prevent groups from taking away our rights. We, as Americans, not just Floridians, should be forever protected in our right to fish and hunt; without governmental control. Some states have bans being considered that include a push to criminalize hunting, fishing and farming. We do NOT need to let the government have that control over us nor our future generations.

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.”

In short – Amendment 3 proposes to protect the right of adults age 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana, including up to five grams of marijuana concentrates, without civil or criminal penalty. It would also allow existing marijuana facilities to sell marijuana for recreational use. It would not, however, allow any new businesses to begin producing or selling marijuana within the adult-use market unless the Florida Legislature passes a law to make additional marijuana business licenses available. This amendment applies to Florida; it does not change or immunize violations of federal law.

This amendment made it to the ballot with 1,033,770 valid citizen signatures

A yes vote would legalize marijuana consumption in the state of Florida for non-medical purposes, including recreation. This legalization enables personal consumption and private cultivation of marijuana for sale, requiring a state license to do so. It allows those 21 and older to purchase and consume cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation.

A no vote retains the current marijuana law for the state, which allows for its consumption and sale for medical purposes only.

Supporters say – increased sales from a new recreational market would add to tax revenues. Supporters also say we should treat marijuana the same as we treat beer, wine and spirits and it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Additionally, legalizing marijuana prioritizes individual freedom.

Opponents say – The average voter will think that Floridians can grow their own marijuana, when in fact this will only benefit big corporations. Only the corporations stand to make millions/billions of dollars from this. Opponents say that states like California and Colorado are warning Florida not to follow their path. The promises of financial gains from legalization have not materialized, while marijuana-related crimes, accidents and public health concerns all rise.
Additionally, legalization will threaten the health and safety of every citizen in Florida. Marijuana is a gateway drug.

My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 3

My Reasoning: It is a drug. Period. Legalizing it does not make it “not a drug” and I’m not for legalizing drugs. Several years ago, it was determined that smoking cigarettes was bad for our health and caused lung cancer. Then, it was determined that second-hand smoke caused health problems and lung cancer. Now, there is evidence that vaping causes lung problems. Tobacco companies were sued because cigarettes were “bad for us.” Yet now, we are debating on if we should legalize a ‘different kind’ of addictive drug that will be inhaled by the consumers and inhaled from second hand smoke. That makes no sense to me. The same holds true for opioids …. Our country is in a state of panic trying to get our opioid addiction under control – yet here we are voting on something that will produce the same affect.
There are also legitimate concerns of more people that could be driving while high on the drug - - or going to work high. I also voted several years ago to keep Madison County “dry” much for many of these same reasons. Back then, so many voters thought a “wet” county meant more places could sell liquor - - yet there is only one store in Madison County because the law was not for everyone to sell it. The same holds true with this marijuana law …. Only big corporations make all the money and will gain from this. Not the small businesses. That’s why the big corporations push “yes” on these laws.
Additionally, the “gummies” are notoriously known (in other states where they are legalized) to be taken by children, thinking they are candy. Many are seriously injured and/or die from the ingestion.
While recreational marijuana legalization could create tax benefits, the cost should be weighed against the possible public health problems (and costs). The real question SHOULD BE whether making recreational marijuana legal would benefit our state as a whole…. And my answer is “no.”

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.
The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment I indeterminate. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO AMBIGUITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT.”

In short – If this amendment passes, it would overturn Florida’s six-week abortion ban and replace it with legalized abortions up to fetal viability or to protect a patient’s health. Neither of those two are defined in the ballot language.

This amendment made it to the ballot with 996,512 valid citizen signatures

A yes vote would legalize abortion in the state of Florida before the period of fetal viability. Fetal viability, or when a baby is estimated to be able to survive outside of the mother’s uterus, is generally assumed among health professionals to be around 24 weeks into pregnancy. However, because the ballot language does not clearly define when fetal viability is, it is open for interpretation and legal ambiguity.

A no vote would keep in place the state’s current abortion law, which sets abortion as legal only within the first six weeks of a pregnancy, or to save the mother’s life.

Supporters say – this ensures that more women would be able to get an abortion, rather just within that first six weeks. Supporters emphasize personal medical freedom, free from government control.

Opponents say – this amendment is written with too many uncertainties and the ambiguous language – such as: fetal viability varies by patient, likely setting the groundwork for future controversy. In addition, the wording states that the abortion decision does not require an actual medical doctor to determine if an abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s health or if the fetus is viable, but instead allows any 'health care provider' to make these decisions. Under Florida law, 'health care providers' is not limited to doctors so even employees of abortion clinics who are not doctors would be able to approve late-term abortions, possibly even during the ninth month of pregnancy. Opponents are also concerned about the removal of parental consent requirements.

My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 4

My Reasoning: This amendment is too vague on too many concerns: viability, health care provider and financial impact and if the state will eventually be forced to pay for the abortions.
According to this wording, anyone could perform the abortion, so a young girl could end up going to someone who is not a licensed doctor to get an abortion, and then have no medical or clinical follow up or oversight into her medical needs, all without her parents’ knowledge.
I will vote “no” on this amendment because it is too extreme. I personally think more than six weeks is needed, because of many reasons (rape, incest) and for young girls that may hide it long enough that six weeks has passed, and because health problems may show up later in the first trimester. However, this amendment is entirely too radical with “open ended” language and is going to cause problems galore.

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.”

In short – As of 2024, in Florida, property tax (millage) rates are set by counties, school districts, cities, and special districts. Homes in Florida are assessed at just value (market value), minus the homestead exemption. The homestead exemption reduces the taxable value of a property. Every primary residence is eligible for a $25,000 homestead exemption, which exempts that amount from all taxes. Another $25,000 homestead exemption is applied on a homestead's value between $50,000 and $75,000, which exempts that amount from all taxes except school district taxes.
The amendment would provide for an annual inflation adjustment for the value of the homestead property tax exemption that applies to non-school taxes. The adjustment would be made every year on January 1 based on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index reported by the U.S. Department of Labor if the change is positive.

This amendment made it to the ballot with 71.67% of the Florida House of Representatives voting Yes and 62.5% of the Florida State Senate voting Yes.

A YES vote on this amendment: A yes vote supports adding an inflation adjustment to the current homestead tax exemption. Under the measure, assessments would be indexed to the percent change in the Consumer Price Index. For example, if the rate of inflation is 8 percent, it would increase the value of the exemption from $25,000 to $27,000.

A no vote supports keeping the current homestead tax exemption regardless of inflation. This means that taxes will automatically rise as property values rise with inflation

Supporters say – this amendment will give homeowners relief on their taxes by adjusting for inflation and could encourage home ownership and drive down the cost of home ownership as the cost of living goes up. Additionally, it will help seniors, and people with lower incomes, be able to afford their homes.

Opponents say – this measure will have a negative impact on tax revenues for local governments. That by local governments losing that money in homestead taxes, they will be forced to find the lost revenue by raising taxes on others, such as renters and businesses – in essence “shifting the burden.”

My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 5

My Reasoning: This amendment provides moderate relief to homeowners without significant fiscal impact. I believe the arguments on hurting local government revenue is not founded because this amendment only adjusts the homestead exemption for inflation, so it is reducing future rates of increase, not a big chunk at one time immediately. Homeowners (and property owners) are taxed more heavily than non-property owners already. It is time for homeowners to have some sort of tax break – and this really isn’t a full “tax-break;” this is adjusting for inflation. Everything else in our world is adjusted for inflation: wages, cost of homes, cost of living …. This will give homeowners that advantage also. (However, I do wish this was a tax cut on all property that is owned, not just homes, but this is a start!)

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.”

In short – This amendment seeks to eliminate public funding for state campaigns. If passed it would repeal Section 7 of Article VI of the Florida Constitution, which provides for public campaign financing for statewide candidates who agree to spending limits. Currently, under Article VI, public campaign financing is available for candidates for the offices of governor, attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture. (Florida is one of twelve states that offers public financing for campaigns.)

This amendment made it to the ballot with 70% of the Florida House of Representatives voting Yes and 68.33% of the Florida State Senate voting Yes.

A yes vote would repeal the provision of the Florida Constitution that provides public funds to candidates for statewide offices (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer, Commissioner of Agriculture).

A no vote would keep in place public financing for statewide candidates.

Supporters say – we should not spend general revenue funds helping candidates run for office. Instead, we should be spending those funds on other means that could help Floridians, such as education, healthcare, water projects, beach restoration, etc. The offices like the governor and the cabinet should be able to finance their own campaigns through fundraising rather than using taxpayer money. Supporters additionally say that we “give away” millions of dollars every few years to help campaigns and that money should stay in Florida and be used on more important issues.

Opponents say – Public financing supports fair elections by encouraging diverse candidates and makes running for office more accessible to candidates who don't have a personal fortune. Without public funding it makes it harder for less-wealthy people to run. Public financing provides an open door for worthy candidates who might otherwise be closed off from running because they prefer not to take from special interest groups and lobbyists.

My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 6

My Reasoning: I do not think our tax money should go to fund someone’s political campaign. Our taxes should go to helping Florida and its citizens. Politicians can/should raise their own money; allowing the citizens of Florida to keep ALL our tax money to use on more important issues.