|
Florida Gears Up for November Initiative Battles
Florida voters in November will be going to the polls to choose a new governor and consider six ballot initiatives that seek to amend the state’s constitution. One of those initiatives, Amendment 3, would require most state amendment proposals to be approved by at least 60% of the voters, rather than a simple majority, but would not affect the current requirement for a proposed amendment imposing a new state tax or fee to be approved by at least two-thirds of the voters.
Supporters of the proposed amendment argue that Florida’s constitution is too easy to amend and that this has allowed out-of-state groups and special interests to bypass the legislature and abuse the initiative process. A case in point was a 2002 initiative in which animal rights activists convinced voters to adopt an amendment prohibiting the confinement of pregnant pigs in cages, crates or other enclosures, making Florida the first state to afford constitutional protections to pigs.
Amendment 3 supporters say there is ample evidence that the Florida ballot process is being abused:
- Since 1968, Florida’s constitution has been amended 103 times. The U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 217 years.
- A spot on Florida’s ballot can be purchased for $2 million and takes only six months of work.
- Nearly 50 amendments have been filed for the 2008 ballot.
- Only 10 of the 103 amendments have passed with the approval of the majority of registered voters.
Meanwhile, the Florida Supreme Court in June issued a ruling that would allow the “Florida Hometown Democracy” amendment to qualify for the 2008 ballot if supporters collect enough signatures. This no-growth amendment, by requiring voter approval before city or county land use plans could be changed, would effectively remove land use and planning decisions from local government and bring growth to a screeching halt.
Proponents of the initiative had sought to place it on the ballot in 2004, but the court turned back their efforts, ruling that the measure contained misleading language. In its most recent opinion, the court held that the amendment met state requirements after the questionable language was removed.
For more information on Amendment 3, click here.
|
