Some of the following is from bereadytovote.org/constitutional-amendments/.

More complete information about each amendment, including ballot wording and the actual changes to the constitution, is available at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_2018_ballot_measures.

The League of Women Voters shows their positions at https://www.lwvfl.org/amendments/.

The DPCF - Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida’s opinions are athttps://www.progressivefl.org/dpcf-2018-amendments/

Tentative Progressive Sarasota positions:

YES on 4 (voting rights), 9 (drilling, vaping), and 13 (dog racing)

NO on 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12

2018 Florida Constitutional AmendmentsTen proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution are on the General Election ballot. Three more were removed by judges but may reappear based on early September Florida Supreme Court rulings. Because Florida’s Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), which convenes every 20 years, is allowed by law to bundle more than one issue into each question there are even more distinct questions. An example of the CRC’s issue bundling in 2018 is Amendment 9, which asks voters to decide whether to ban offshore oil drilling, and whether to ban e-cigarettes at workplaces. Like the CRC’s other bundled amendments, voters cannot cast separate votes on drilling and vaping. These are all-or-nothing propositions.

Of the 10 amendments on this year’s ballot and the three being appealed, eight were proposed by the CRC, three by the Florida Legislature and two by citizen initiative. To pass, each of them must receive at least 60 percent approval by voters. Unless otherwise indicated, changes to the Constitution take effect on Jan. 8, 2019.

Below are summaries of each amendment, including the impact of a yes or no vote.

LEG = proposed by the Legislature;

CRC = Proposed by the Constitution Revision Commission;

CICA = Citizen Initiated Constitutional Amendment

NOTE: Save My Constitution opposes every measure placed on the November 2018 ballot by the CRC (Florida Constitution Revision Commission). The group consists of former state and federal lawmakers including Jim Kallinger (R), Jeff Kottkamp (R), Jennifer Carroll (R), Sandy Adams (R), and Connie Mack (R). The group argues that the measures are confusing and misleading and were placed on the ballot in a deceptive way by bundling multiple subjects in a single proposal

Amendment 1

Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption (LEG)

Would increase homestead exemption by $25,000 for homes valued at more than $100,000.

BALLOT WORDING:

INCREASED HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to increase the homestead exemption by exempting the assessed valuation of homestead property greater than $100,000 and up to $125,000 for all levies other than school district levies. The amendment shall take effect January 1, 2019.

A YES vote on Amendment 1 would:

Allow homeowners to deduct up to another $25,000 from the taxable value of a home worth more than $100,000, starting on Jan. 1, 2019.

Exclude local school taxes from the new exemption. Cost Florida’s cities, counties and other taxing authorities an

estimated $687.5 million annually, starting in 2019, according to the Florida Association of Counties.

Likely result in cuts to services or higher local rates to make up for the revenue losses, or possibly both.

A NO vote on Amendment 1 would:

Retain the current homestead tax exemptions, which total $50,000.

Have no effect on the amount of tax revenue collected by city and county governments.

Supporters: Unknown

Opponents: Florida Association of Counties; Florida Education Association; Florida League of Cities; Florida Policy Institute; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida, DPCF (Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida), Floridians for Tax Fairness

LWV: NO - The League has a position that “no tax sources or revenue should be specified, limited, exempted, or prohibited in the Constitution.”

DPCF: NO - Will force local governments to cut public services or raise local taxes.

FTF: “Tax breaks to benefit the wealthiest homeowners shift even more of the burden for essential government services like public safety onto lower and middle-income homeowners, and renters who can’t afford to own a home,”

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_1,_Homestead_Exemption_Increase_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 2

Limitations on Property Tax Assessments (LEG)

Makes permanent what currently is a temporary cap of 10 percent on annual property value increases for vacation homes, apartments and commercial property, effectively limiting increases on tax bills.

BALLOT WORDING:

LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to permanently retain provisions currently in effect, which limit property tax assessment increases on specified nonhomestead real property, except for school district taxes, to 10 percent each year. If approved, the amendment removes the scheduled repeal of such provisions in 2019 and shall take effect January 1, 2019.

A YES vote on Amendment 2 would:

Make permanent the 10 percent limit on increases in tax value for non-homestead property, thus reducing tax bills.

Continue to deny local governments (excluding school districts) tax revenue they would otherwise collect from rising property values.

A NO vote on Amendment 2 would:

End the practice of limiting tax increases on non-homestead property by limiting property-value increases to 10 percent.

Possibly lead to higher tax bills for non-homestead property, resulting in additional revenue to local governments of about $700 million, according to the state Revenue Estimating Conference.

Supporters: Florida Association of Realtors; Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida TaxWatch

Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida, DPCF

LWV: NO - The League has a position that “no tax sources or revenue should be specified, limited, exempted, or prohibited in the Constitution.”DPCF: NO - Will continue to limit resources available for public services

Frank Alcock: YES

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_2,_Permanent_Cap_on_Nonhomestead_Parcel_Assessment_Increases_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 3

Voter Control of Gambling in Florida (CICA)

Requires approval of any new casino gambling through a citizen-initiative constitutional amendment, effectively barring the Legislature from making those gambling decisions by passing laws. In Florida, a constitutional amendment requires a 60 percent vote of electors to be approved.

Overview:

The measure would provide voters with the "exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida." Amendment 3 would make the citizen initiative process "the exclusive method of authorizing casino gambling," meaning the Florida State Legislature would not be permitted to authorize casino gambling through statute or through referring a constitutional amendment to the ballot.[1] In Florida, the number of signatures required for an initiative is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equal to 8 percent of the district-wide vote in at least half (14) of the state's 27 congressional districts must be collected.

The measure would consider card games, casino games, and slot machines to be casino gambling. The measure would not consider pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing, dog racing, or jai alai exhibitions to be casino gambling. The measure would not impact casino gambling on Native American tribal lands established through state-tribe compacts.[1]

As of 2018, card games, casino games, and slot machines were prohibited at non-tribal facilities in all but two counties in Florida. In 2004, voters passed an initiative, Amendment 4, to allow voters in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to authorize slot machines at parimutuel facilities, such as horse racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai exhibititions, that existed and were licensed during the two years prior.[2] The Seminole Tribe of Florida, through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), negotiated a Class III gaming compact with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist in 2010.[3] The compact allowed the Seminole Tribe to operate blackjack at five facilities through 2015 and required the tribe to share revenue with the state. In 2015, Gov. Rick

Scott (R) formed a new 20-year compact with the Seminole Tribe, which added craps and roulette to the agreement and gave the tribe the exclusive right to blackjack.[4]

How current is this campaign finance information?

The support campaign, Voters in Charge, had raised $27.27 million. The top contributor to the support campaign was Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., which contributed $14.65 million. The second largest contributor was the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which contributed $11.78 million. Sponsors spent $6.89 per required signature on the petition gathering and verification process.[5]There was no committee registered to oppose to the initiative.

BALLOT WORDING:

Voter Control of Gambling in Florida

This amendment ensures that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling by requiring that in order for casino gambling to be authorized under Florida law, it must be approved by Florida voters pursuant to Article XI, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution. Affects articles X and XI. Defines casino gambling and clarifies that this amendment does not conflict with federal law regarding state/tribal compacts

A YES vote on Amendment 3 would:

Require that voters approve a constitutional amendment through citizen initiative to authorize any new casino gambling in Florida, essentially stripping that authority from the Legislature.

Preclude constitutional approval of casinos through other means, including amendments offered by the Legislature or by the CRC.

Continue to allow the Legislature to approve other types of non-casino gambling, such as poker rooms, bingo, lotteries and fantasy sports.

Allow the Legislature to oversee, regulate and tax any casino-type gambling that voters approve through a constitutional amendment.

Not affect the state’s ability to negotiate casino agreements with Native-American

A NO vote on Amendment 3 would:

Continue to allow casino gambling either through new laws passed by the Legislature or through various types of constitutional amendments.

Supporters: Disney Worldwide Services; Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association; League of Women Voters of Florida; No Casinos Inc.; Seminole Tribe of Florida

Opponents: Florida Education Association

LWV:  YES - It restricts casino gambling and allows Florida voters to make any decisions regarding increases of casino gambling, consistent with League position against gambling. This amendment is also supported by No Casinos, Inc. and Disney.DPCF: YES - Removes authority to expand gambling from the legislature and returns it to voters

Frank Alcock: NO

Another argument for yes vote

John Sowinski, chairman of Voters In Charge, stated:[12]

“ People will agree or disagree about casino gambling. But regardless of your position, given the stakes involved and the money that the gambling industry puts into campaigns and lobbying, the people of Florida should have the final say on whether or not to legalize casino-style gambling. Our state’s history shows that without this bright line, gambling will continue to spread through big money lobbying and clever lawyering. If the courts fail to do so, our amendment will put Florida voters back in charge of making such decisions.[7] ”

Other arguments for NO vote:

·      Sen. Bill Galvano (R-21) stated, "It’s game over for the Legislature if that (constitutional) amendment gets on the ballot and passes. And at that point, we’ll just be spectators in the world of gaming, which will essentially be a monopoly for the Seminole Tribe."[14]

·      Izzy Havenick, whose family owns dog racing tracks in Naples and Miami, said, "I think it will have a huge impact on our industry, because as opposed to the Legislature regulating us, we’ll need 60 percent of the residents of Florida to regulate us in the future. And, as the most regulated business in the state, that just makes anything we want to do to grow our business in the future more difficult."[14]

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_3,_Voter_Approval_of_Casino_Gambling_Initiative_(2018)

Amendment 4

Voting Restoration Amendment (CICA)

Allows those who have completed their entire sentence to earn the right to vote back except for those convicted of murder or felony sex offenses.

A YES vote on Amendment 4 would:

Grant felons – excluding those convicted of murder or felony sex crimes – the right to vote after completing  all the terms of their sentence. The Governor’s Clemency Board studies have shown that recidivism rates drop about 30% if person has their voting rights restored. Another study shows that with a lower recidivism rate, costs of incarceration go down, employment goes up and that the positive impact on the Florida economy is $365 million per year.

A NO vote on Amendment 4 would:

Continue the current requirement that felons wait a minimum of five years before applying to have their voting rights restored, and then appear before the governor and Cabinet to appeal for those rights.

Continue allowing the governor and Cabinet sole authority to determine whether a felon is allowed to vote again.

BALLOT WORDING:

Voting Restoration Amendment

This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis

OVERVIEW:

Amendment 4 was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.[1] As of 2018, people with prior felonies never regain the right to vote in Florida, until and unless a state board restores an individual's voting rights. Under former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who was elected as a Republican, changed his affiliation to unaffiliated toward the end of his term in office, and registered as a Democrat after his time as governor, the Executive Clemency Board automatically restored the rights of felons who had completed their sentences, paid restitution, and had no pending criminal charges. Current governor Rick Scott (R) eliminated those reforms made by the Crist administration.[2] Under Scott's administration, convicted felons must wait five or seven years, depending on the type of offense, after the completion of their sentences to request that the board consider the restoration of their voting and other civil rights.[3][4]

A report from The Sentencing Project, estimated that, as of 2016, around 6.1 million people, or about 2.5 percent of the U.S. voting age population, were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. Florida was estimated to have 1,686,318 persons—10.43 percent of the voting age population—disenfranchised due to felonies. A state-by-state comparison of disenfranchised voting populations can be found here. The margin-of-victory (MOV) in the 2010 and 2014 gubernatorial elections was 1.2 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. For presidential elections, the MOV was 0.9 percent 2012 and 1.2 percent in 2016. More information on the MOV of past elections can be found here.

As of 2018, Florida is one of four states where convicted felons do not regain the right to vote, until and unless a state officer or board restores an individual's voting rights. This felon voting law was part of the original Florida Constitution of 1968—the state constitution active in 2018—as well as the state constitutions of 1885 and 1868. On February 1, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker ruled

Florida's process for the restoration of voting abilities for felons unconstitutional, saying it violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.[5] Gov. Scott announced that he would appeal the ruling to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit concurred with Gov. Scott's request, staying the lower court's ruling.[6]

As of 2018, Florida is one of four states—the three others are Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia—where convicted felons do not regain the right to vote, until and unless a state officer or board restores an individual's voting rights. If Amendment 4 passes, Florida would become like 19 other states which restore the right to vote after prison time, parole, and probation are completed.

How current is this campaign finance information?

One committee is registered in support of Amendment 4: Floridians for a Fair Democracy. The committee had raised $15.2 million and expended $6.8 million. The top contributor to the support campaign was the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which contributed $5.4 million. There were no committees registered in opposition to the initiative, although a non-profit, Floridians For A Sensible Voting Rights Policy, opposes the initiative and, according to it's website, could register as a committee.[7]

Ten other states have ballot measures related to election policy on the ballot in 2018. Five of the measures concern redistricting, and, like Florida's Amendment 4, three other measures concern the topic of voting laws such as voter ID and voter registration.

_______

Supporters: American Civil Liberties Union; Florida Rights Restoration Coalition; Floridians for a Fair Democracy; Florida Policy Institute; Florida Education Association; Florida National Organization for Women; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida

Opponents: Floridians for a Sensible Voting Rights Policy

LWV: YES - The League was one of the sponsors of this initiative. Florida is one of only four states that permanently bars felons from voting after their sentences are completed. This restriction on voting is a vestige of Florida’s post-Civil War Constitution. Everyone deserves a second chance.

DPCF: YES - Gives 1.5 million Floridians the right to vote after paying their debt to society

John Oliver: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/john-oliver-florida-disenfranchisement-capital-721875/

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_4,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Felons_Initiative_(2018)

Amendment 5

Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes or Fees (LEG)

Requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve any new or increased taxes or fees, rather than a simple majority.

BALLOT LANGUAGE:

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE, AUTHORIZE, OR RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES

Prohibits the legislature from imposing, authorizing, or raising a state tax or fee except through legislation approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature in a bill containing no other subject. This proposal does not authorize a state tax or fee otherwise prohibited by the Constitution and does not apply to fees or taxes imposed or authorized to be imposed by a county, municipality, school board, or special district.

A YES vote on Amendment 5 would:

Require a two-thirds vote by the state House and Senate to increase existing taxes and fees or impose new ones.

Require that any new or increased taxes or fees be voted on in stand-alone bills.

Exclude local governments from any supermajority requirements if they choose to raise taxes or fees.

A NO vote on Amendment 5 would:

Allow the Legislature to continue approving increased or new taxes and fees through a simple majority vote.

Allow the Legislature to continue bundling tax and fee increases with bills that include other measures.

Supporters: Florida TaxWatch; Florida Chamber of Commerce

Opponents: Florida Education Association; Florida Policy Institute; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida

LWV: NO This amendment does not include a provision that would allow for tax increases in times of emergencies (hurricane, floods, recession, etc.) and is an abrogation of the Legislature’s fiduciary responsibility to pass a reasonable budget.DPCF: NO Will tie the hands of future legislatures making it nearly impossible to address budget needs, such as teacher raises and natural catastrophes.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D) said, “It’s very clear that they’re getting ready for when they’re out of power, and trying to stack the deck now as much as possible. Everything we have proposed hinges on our ability to defeat this. “What they want to do is pass this measure now so they’ll be able to jam a Democratic governor by forcing votes that will require Republican participation. We have to do everything we can to make sure this does not go through.

https://www.news-journal.com/at-state-level-gop-renews-push-to-require-supermajorities-for/article_93edd986-83ce-11e8-ba71-3706a54dc036.html

Floridians for Tax Fairness: “Amendment 5 would make any legislation imposing new or increased taxes or fees contingent on a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate.

“Passage of this amendment means any attempt to eliminate special tax breaks for profitable corporations would be easily blocked by a few bought-and-paid-for politicians.

“Florida currently has the wrong priorities. We’ve given special tax breaks to big corporations instead of funding education, health care, public safety, and other services that benefit our families, communities, and economy.

“Amendment 5 is a dream come true for career politicians and their large corporate benefactors because it would make it nearly impossible to close corporate tax loopholes and end the special treatment of the wealthiest taxpayers in the state.”

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_5,_Two-Thirds_Vote_of_Legislature_to_Increase_Taxes_or_Fees_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 6

Rights of Crime Victims; Judges (CRC)

Vastly expands the scope of victims rights under the state Constitution; increases the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75; forces courts and judges to interpret laws and rules for themselves rather than rely on interpretations by government agencies.

Note: The CRC voted 34-3 to place this on the ballot. There were 33 Republicans plus Pam Bondi on the CRC and only three Democrats appointed by the Supreme C

BALLOT LANGUAGE:

RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES

Creates constitutional rights for victims of crime; requires courts to facilitate victims’ rights; authorizes victims to enforce their rights throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes. Requires judges and hearing officers to independently interpret statutes and rules rather than deferring to government agency’s interpretation. Raises mandatory retirement age of state judges from seventy to seventy-five years; deletes authorization for judges to complete term if one-half of term has been served by retirement age.

A YES vote on Amendment 6 would:

Enshrine in the state Constitution an array of victims rights, many of which are currently in state law.

Place new time limits on filing appeals. Require that victims receive some type of written notification of

their rights.

Eliminate an existing constitutional provision that ensures victims’ rights don’t infringe on the rights of accused criminals.

Raise the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices and judges from 70 to 75.

Prohibit courts and judges from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of state laws or rules when deciding cases.

A NO vote on Amendment 6 would:

Retain existing victims rights in the Constitution and in state law.

Keep the mandatory retirement ages for justices and judges at 70.

Continue allowing courts and judges to rely on state agencies’ interpretation of state laws and rules when deciding cases.

Supporters: 37 Florida sheriffs; Florida Smart Justice

Opponents: ACLU of Florida; Florida Education Association; Florida Public Defender Association; League of Women Voters of Florida

LWV: NO - Victims’ rights are already protected in the Constitution, and this amendment would eliminate an existing provision that victims’ rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.DPCF: NO - Victims’ rights already protected in the Constitution; Eliminates an existing provision that protects the constitutional rights of the accused.

LWV argues the language is “affirmatively and materially misleading insofar as it fails to inform voters that it will result in the loss of current constitutional rights of criminal defendants, will modify speedy trial procedures, will restrict time frames for criminal appeals, will provide constitutional ‘victim’s’ rights to corporations and other business entities in criminal proceedings, and purports to ‘create’ constitutional rights for victims of crime even though rights for crime victims already exist in Florida’s constitution.” Additionally, it says, the ballot misleads voters into believing that victims could independently enforce their rights; obliges courts to facilitate those rights; and omits mention of the restriction on judicial deference to agencies.

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_6,_Marsy%27s_Law_Crime_Victims_Rights,_Judicial_Retirement_Age,_and_Judicial_Interpretation_of_Laws_and_Rules_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 7

First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges and Universities (CRC)

Creates a supermajority requirement for universities to impose new or increase existing student fees; enshrines in the Constitution guidelines for the State College System; mandates that employers or the state pay a death benefit to first responders and members of the military killed in the line of duty.

BALLOT WORDING:

FIRST RESPONDER AND MILITARY MEMBER SURVIVOR BENEFITS; PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Creates mandatory payment of education and compensation benefits to qualifying survivors of certain first responders and military members who die performing official duties. Requires supermajority votes by university trustees and state university system board of governors to raise or impose all legislatively authorized fees if law requires approval by those bodies. Establishes existing state college system as constitutional entity; provides governance structure.

OVERVIEW

Establishing death benefits for survivors of first responders and military members

Amendment 7 would require employers to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of first responders while engaged in official duties. The measure would require the state to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of active-duty U.S. Armed Forces members who are accidentally killed or unlawfully and intentionally

killed. The measure would also require the state to waive certain educational expenses, as defined in statute, for the surviving children or spouse of the deceased first responder or military member in order to obtain a career certificate, an undergraduate education, or a postgraduate education.[1]

Amendment 7 would define first responders to include (a) firefighters; (b) paramedics; (c) emergency medical technicians (EMTs); (d) law enforcement officers; (e) correctional officers; (f) correctional probation officers; and (g) members of the Florida National Guard.[1]

As of 2018, state statutes provide for death benefits for law enforcement, correctional, and correctional probation officers, firefighters, and members of the Florida National Guard. The statutes require that the employer of the first responder pay the death benefit to survivors. The death benefits range from $50,000 to $150,000, depending on the circumstances of death.

Requiring a supermajority vote to increase college fees

Amendment 7 would require a nine-member vote of a university's 13-member board of trustees (69.23 percent) and 12-member vote of the 17-member state board of governors (70.59 percent) to increase a college fee. As of 2018, a simple majority vote of a university's board of trustees and the state board of governors is needed to increase a college fee.[1]

Adding structure of state college system to constitution

Amendment 7 would place the current structure of the state's system of higher education in the Florida Constitution. The measure would also state that the purpose of the state's system of higher education is "to achieve excellence and to provide access to undergraduate education to the students of this state;" "to originate articulated pathways to a baccalaureate degree;" "to ensure superior commitment to teaching and learning;" and "to respond quickly and efficiently to meet the demand of communities by aligning certificate and degree programs with local and regional workforce needs."[1]

The system that would be added to the state constitution requires that:[1]

there be a single state college system comprised of all public community and state colleges:

a local board of trustees shall govern each institution; members of a board of trustees must be a resident of the

college's service delivery area;

members of a board of trustees are appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the state Senate, to four-year terms; and

the state board of education shall supervise the state college system;

A YES vote on Amendment 7 would:

Force universities’ boards of trustees and the state Board of Governors to get supermajority approval from their members to increase student fees or impose new ones.

Make the governing framework for state colleges a part of the Constitution.

Create a constitutional requirement for state and local governments to pay death benefits to first responders.

Expand the definition of first responders under state law to include paramedics and emergency medical technicians.

Require the state to provide death benefits to members of the U.S. military who are either residents of Florida or who are stationed in the state.

Create an undetermined financial burden on local and state government from paying death benefits to a larger group of first responders and members of the military. The amendment does not specify a funding source for those payments.

A NO vote on Amendment 7 would:

Continue allowing universities to increase student fees or impose new ones with a simple majority of votes from governing bodies.

Exclude a governing framework for state colleges from the Constitution, while keeping it in state law.

Continue providing death benefits for first responders through state law rather than making it part of the Constitution.

Maintain the current definition of first responders eligible for death benefits, which excludes paramedics and emergency medical technicians.

Continue providing death benefits to the families of National Guardsmen who are killed in the line of duty, but not extend those benefits to the families of U.S. service members who live in Florida.

Supporters: Association of Florida Colleges

Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida, DPCF

LWV: NO - We oppose a supermajority vote to increase fees or taxes. Family members of the military who die in the line of service are already compensated through the federal government.DPCF: NO - 3/4 majority vote to increase fees makes it very difficult to meet university needs.

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_7,_First_Responder_and_Military_Member_Survivor_Benefits,_Supermajority_Board_Votes_for_College_Fees,_and_State_College_System_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 8 – WILL NOT BE ON BALLOT. Removed by the Supreme Court (4-3 decision) Sept. 7.

See https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/09/07/florida-supreme-court-strikes-amendment-8-from-november-ballot/

School Board Term Limits and Duties; Public Schools (CRC)

Mandates term limits of eight years for all Florida school boards; allows the state to create public schools, something only local school boards currently can do; and requires schools to teach “civic literacy.”

A YES vote on Amendment 8 would:

Create constitutional term limits for all Florida school board members, who could serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms.

Allow the Legislature to set up a state-run system for establishing and operating public schools, something only local school boards, elected by local communities, currently can do.

Create a constitutional requirement for civics education in public schools, something state law already requires in middle schools.

A NO vote on Amendment 8 would:

Reject term limits for school board members and allow voters to return board members to office as long as they get re-elected.

Keep local school boards as the sole authority for approving, operating and supervising public schools.

Reject a constitutional mandate for civics education, which would not affect the current state law that requires middle schools to teach students about the U.S. Constitution and other governing documents and institutions.

Supporters: U.S. Term Limits

Opponents: Florida School Boards Association; Florida Policy Institute; Florida Education Association; Florida National Organization for Women; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida.

LWV: NO We believe local governments should have the responsibility to set term limits for their offices. We are opposed to a state run system for establishing and operating public schools, and schools do not need a constitutional amendment to teach civics.DPCF: NO Establishes school board term limits; allows state to operate non-board established schools; requires civic literacy (DPCF opposes term limits; amendment takes authority for charter school approval and oversight from local school boards and gives it to Tallahassee politicians)

On August 20, 2018, Amendment 8 was blocked from the ballot by a court ruling that stated the ballot title and ballot summary were misleading. The state appealed the ruling, and the Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Amendment 9

Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces (CRC)

Prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida; prohibits the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces.

A YES vote on Amendment 9 would:

Enshrine in the Constitution a ban on oil and gas drilling beneath Florida state waters.

Exempt shipments of oil and gas on Florida’s waters. Possibly signal to the federal government Floridians’ opposition

to offshore drilling. Apply constitutional restrictions to drilling only to waters under

state control, not to waters under federal control. Add new restrictions to the Constitution on the use of electronic

vaping devices, largely mirroring current constitutional restrictions on indoor workplace smoking.

Create exceptions to the vaping restrictions in homes, bars, vaping retailers and hotel rooms designated for vaping.

Allow local governments to pass stricter regulations on the use of vaping devices.

A NO vote on Amendment 9 would:

Keep a drilling ban out of the state Constitution but would not alter existing state laws that ban drilling.

Allow Florida legislators to change the current law that bans offshore drilling in state-controlled waters.

Possibly signal to the federal government Floridians’ openness to offshore drilling.

Keep restrictions on vaping and the use of vaping devices out of the state Constitution.

Leave any such vaping restrictions to the discretion of the state Legislature.

BALLOT WORDING:

PROHIBITS OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DRILLING; PROHIBITS VAPING IN ENCLOSED INDOOR WORKPLACES

Prohibits drilling for the exploration or extraction of oil and natural gas beneath all state-owned waters between the mean high water line and the state’s outermost territorial boundaries. Adds use of vapor-generating electronic devices to current prohibition of tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces with exceptions; permits more restrictive local ordinances

OVERVIEW

Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling Amendment

Amendment 9 would prohibit drilling, either for exploration or extraction, of oil or natural gas in state waters. This prohibition would include the ocean from shoreline to the outermost boundaries of the state’s territorial seas. The measure would not affect the transportation of oil and natural gas products that were produced outside the state’s waters.[1]

Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment

Amendment 9 would prohibit the use of vapor-generating electronic devices in enclosed indoor workplaces. The measure would make exceptions for the use of vapor-generating electronic devices in (1) private residences that are not being used for commercial childcare, adult care, or healthcare; (2) in retail tobacco and vapor-generating electronic device shops; (3) designed smoking guest rooms in hotels; and (4) stand-alone bars.[1]

Amendment 9 would define vapor-generating electronic devices as “any product that employs an electronic, a chemical, or a mechanical means capable of producing vapor or aerosol from a nicotine product or any other substance.” The definition would include electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic pipes, and other similar devices or products, replacement cartridge for such devices, and other containers of a solution or other substance intended to be used with or within the devices.[1]

Supporters: Florida Wildlife Federation; Gulf Restoration Network; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; League of Women Voters of Florida; Florida Policy Institute; Progress Florida

Opponents: Florida Petroleum Council; Associated Industries of Florida; Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association; Florida Education Association; Florida Chamber of Commerce

LWV: YES - Our concern for the environment overrides our concern about putting vaping in the Constitution. We also believe that if this amendment doesn’t pass, it sends a signal to the federal government that Florida does not care about off-shore drilling.

DPCF: YES - Concern for the environment overrides concern about putting vaping in the Constitution.

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_9,_Ban_Offshore_Oil_and_Gas_Drilling_and_Ban_Vaping_in_Enclosed_Indoor_Workplaces_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 10

State and Local Government Structure and Operation (CRC)

Requires the Legislature to hold its session in early January on even-numbered years; creates an Office of Domestic Security and Counterterrorism within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; mandates the existence of a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs; forces all counties to elect a sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and Clerk of Circuit Court.

BALLOT LANGUAGE:

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND OPERATION

Requires legislature to retain department of veterans’ affairs. Ensures election of sheriffs, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, tax collectors, and clerks of court in all counties; removes county charters’ ability to abolish, change term, transfer duties, or eliminate election of these offices. Changes annual legislative session commencement date in even-numbered years from March to January; removes legislature’s authorization to fix another date. Creates office of domestic security and counterterrorism within department of law enforcement

A YES vote on Amendment 10 would:

Fix the date for state legislative sessions in even-numbered years as the second Tuesday in January.

Create an Office of Domestic Security and Counterterrorism within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and establish it as the lead agency in terrorism investigations and responses.

Force the Legislature to always have a Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Force all of Florida’s counties, even those with a charter, to hold elections for all five local constitutional offices found in the state Constitution – sheriff, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, tax collector and clerk of the circuit court.

A NO vote on Amendment 10 would:

Continue allowing the Legislature to set a start date for its lawmaking session in even-numbered years.

Reject a constitutionally mandated Office of Security and Counterterrorism under the FDLE.

Reject a constitutionally mandated Department of Veterans’ Affairs, allowing the Legislature to determine if Florida should have such a department (which it currently does).

Allow Florida’s charter counties to continue determining the duties of five county offices identified in the state Constitution, and whether those offices should be elected posts.

Supporters: Unknown

Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida, DPCF

LWV: NO - This limits the voters in local communities from deciding on the election of county officers. It adds an unnecessary provision as the Constitution already has the power to set dates during even numbered years. FDLE is already the lead agency in coordinating efforts to prevent terrorism, and the Constitution already has authorized the Legislature to create a Department of Veteran Affairs. This amendment is clearly an effort to restrict the powers of local government.DPCF: NO - Takes away control granted to charter counties limiting ability to respond to local conditions.

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_10,_State_and_Local_Government_Structure_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 11

Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes (CRC)

Repeals the state’s ability to prohibit non-citizens from buying, owning and selling property; deletes a provision that forces the state to prosecute criminal suspects under the law they were originally charged under, even if the Legislature changes that law; deletes obsolete language having to do with high-speed rail in Florida.

BALLOT LANGUAGE

PROPERTY RIGHTS; REMOVAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISION; CRIMINAL STATUTES

Removes discriminatory language related to real property rights. Removes obsolete language repealed by voters. Deletes provision that amendment of a criminal statute will not affect prosecution or penalties for a crime committed before the amendment; retains current provision allowing prosecution of a crime committed before the repeal of a criminal statute

A YES vote on Amendment 11 would:

Repeal a nearly century-old provision that allows the Legislature to restrict the property rights of non-citizens.

Deletes language that requires criminal suspects to be prosecuted under the provisions of the law they’re accused of breaking, even if that law is changed by the Legislature. Keeps language that requires prosecution if the law is repealed.

Deletes a section of the Constitution – concerning high-speed transportation – that was repealed by voters in 2004. The language, however, was not removed.

A NO vote on Amendment 11 would:

Continue to allow the Legislature to pass laws restricting the property rights of non-citizens.

Continue to mandate that criminal suspects prosecuted under the law they’re accused of breaking even if the state changes that law.

Retain a section of the Constitution about high-speed transportation even though voters repealed that section in 2004.

Supporters: Florida Chamber of Commerce

Opponents: Florida Education Association

LWV: NO POSITION - Although we think that removing obsolete language is a good thing, there is a lot of other obsolete language that is not being addressed. Although the first issue regarding the ability of non-citizens to purchase and sell property cannot be enforced, the provision that requires criminal suspects to be prosecuted for an obsolete law should be changed.

DPCF: NO - Impact of criminal statute portion is unclear and disputed. Other repealed provisions are already unenforceable or expired

(Might reduce prison population. TW)

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_11,_Repeal_Prohibition_on_Aliens’_Property_Ownership,_Delete_Obsolete_Provision_on_High-Speed_Rail,_and_Repeal_of_Criminal_Statutes%27_Effect_on_Prosecution_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 12

Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers (CRC)

Expands ethics rules for elected officials and government employees, notably by expanding from two to six years the time that many officials would have to wait before they could lobby state government.

BALLOT LANGAGE

LOBBYING AND ABUSE OF OFFICE BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Expands current restrictions on lobbying for compensation by former public officers; creates restrictions on lobbying for compensation by currently serving public officers; provides exceptions; prohibits certain abuses of public office for personal benefit

A YES vote on Amendment 12 would:

Extend the ban on state lobbying by legislators and statewide elected officials from two to six years.

Prohibit legislators and statewide elected officials from lobbying federal and local government agencies while in office.

Prohibit top state agency employees from any lobbying while working for the state and from lobbying state government for six years after leaving their job.

Prohibit local elected officials from getting paid to lobby anyone while in office and from lobbying their own governing body for six years after leaving office.

Prohibit judges from lobbying any branch of state government for six years after leaving the bench.

Prohibit any elected official or public employee from using his or her position to gain a “disproportionate benefit,” a term to be defined by the state Ethics Commission.

A NO vote on Amendment 12 would:

Keep in place the current constitutional restrictions on lobbying by sitting and former government officials.

Supporters: Common Cause; Florida Policy Institute; Integrity Florida

Opponents: Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Education Association

LWV: NO POSITION - Although there is need for lobbying reform, we felt that six years might be onerous, and this amendment does not address the real issue regarding lobbying, which is the impact of money in political campaigns.DPCF: NO - Applied too broadly at local level; will not solve problems of money and influence in politics.

More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_12,_Lobbying_Restrictions_Amendment_(2018)

Amendment 13

Dog Racing (CRC)

Bans wagering on any type of dog racing, notably greyhounds, as of Dec. 31, 2020, while continuing to allow dog tracks to continue offering other types of gambling, including poker rooms.

BALLOT LANGUAGE:

ENDS DOG RACING

Phases out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020. Other gaming activities are not affected

A YES vote on Amendment 13 would:

Ban all dog racing in Florida by Dec. 31, 2020, while allowing tracks to continue operating card rooms and slot machines.

Result in a loss of about $1 million in taxes and fees.

A NO vote on Amendment 13 would:

Continue to allow wagering on dog racing in Florida.

Supporters: Grey2K USA; League of Women Voters of Florida

Opponents: Florida Greyhound Association; Florida Education Association; Florida Chamber of Commerce

LWV: YES - This is primarily a gambling issue, and the League has held a consistent position against gambling.DPCF: YES - Prohibits betting on dog races (Ends legal wagering on inhumane dog racing)More at https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_13,_Ban_on_Wagering_on_Dog_Races_Amendment_(2018)

LOCAL AMENDMENTS

VOTE YES:

SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS

Single member districts: Commissioners would live in the district, campaign in the district, be elected only by the people in that district, and be accountable to the voters as they serve on the County Commission for the good of the county.

 At-large districts:Commissioners have to live in the district, but must campaign county-wide, which costs a lot of money, so that only people with significant funding--often from large developers and dark money PACs--can effectively compete.  This basically shuts out grassroots candidates and often assures that the same people, chosen by developers and their friends, win.   The result is that our County Commissioners are largely beholden to developers, and grant special exceptions and tax breaks that benefit them, and not the people living in those districts.  In addition, the overruns by developers often means that we the public taxpayers get to foot the bill.

Passing a referendum for Single Member Districts for electing County Commissioners in Sarasota County could benefit voters of all political parties in this county for years to come.  It wouldo  reduce campaign costs by 80%o  empower neighborhoodso  strengthen citizen participation in our democracy, o  and weaken the power of big moneyed interests over our elections, and over decisions of our elected officials.It's time to bring democracy back to the people.Please support us in this important campaign. SAFE board members put it this way:Dan Lobeck:   "This would be a highly important reform, as it would cut most campaign costs (such as direct mail and signs) by 80%, empower neighborhoods and facilitate door-to-door campaigning, thereby reducing the presently overwhelming power of big money (by big development interests) in County Commission campaigns."Susette Bryan:

"Small step for Sarasota County citizens, big step for fair and honest representation." 

VOTE NO:

PROCESS FOR CITIZEN INITIATED PETITIONS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL ELECTION

Shall Sarasota County Charter Section 7.1 be amended to place citizen-initiated Charter amendments on the next general election ballot upon receiving signatures from 10% of registered voters, provided that signatures are gathered within a set general election cycle timeframe, instead of having an unlimited time to obtain signatures of 5% of registered voters for placement of citizen-initiated amendments on a special election ballot that is held 60 days after certification of the signatures?

_____YES, for the Charter amendment_____NO, against the Charter amendment

Sarasota County Charter Amendment placed on the November/2018 General Election ballot by the Sarasota County per hearing held August 29, 2018.

Comments from Pat Rounds:

We are fortunate to have a Home Rule Charter in Sarasota County.  It begins as follows, "We, the People of Sarasota County, hereby ...adopt this Home Rule Charter."Like the US Constitution, our County Charter has been amended over time. Charter amendments can be proposed in several ways, including by County Commission ordinance and by citizen-initiated petition efforts.  County voters ultimately decide the merits of Charter amendments by county-wide referendum.  For instance, Sarasota County has voted by paper ballot since 2007 because citizens collected enough valid voter signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the 2006 General Election.  County residents voted overwhelmingly to support verified voting, and now the entire State of Florida votes by paper ballot. Ironically, back then our County Commission sued but failed to keep the paper ballot referendum from reaching the voters. 

In the same vein, our County Commission has now taken steps to render the amendment by petition process virtually unattainable. At the eleventh hour on August 29th, with little public discussion or input, the Commission put a referendum on the ballot by ordinance---"a snap of their fingers". This amendment would make it more even more difficult for county citizens to put amendments on the ballot through petition initiative. Currently petitioners must gather valid signatures from 5% of county voters (approx. 15,000 petitions).  It generally has taken two years or more to meet that 5% goal---lots of perseverance, not a "snap of the fingers".     The County Commission's ballot amendment could greatly harm Home Rule by: 

Doubling the number of petitions required to place an amendment on the ballot (from 5% to 10%, or over 30,000 valid voter signatures).  

Greatly limiting the time allowed to collect petitions (a maximum 18-month window between general election cycles). 

Requiring petitions to be submitted early in the general election year---months before referendum wording is finalized for ballot printing. 

In addition, the wording of this Commission-generated Question One is unclear and potentially misleading. While a general election cycle is 24 months, petition signatures must be collected and approved in a maximum of 18 months for an amendment to appear on the next general election ballot. The ballot wording of Question One creates a wrong impression that citizens have 2 years to reach their petition goal. 

___________________________