(NOTE: Amendments #2 & #5 were
stricken from the November ballot)
RDC shares our views on this year's Constitutional
Amendments
In general,
you should vote NO
on any amendment to the State Constitution that you
find suspicious or questionable. As a rule, we
tend to oppose measures proposed by a
Republican-dominated legislature. This year, only
ONE amendment (#4) has been proposed by citizens (and
we do support that amendment).
Please take a few minutes to look over RDC's analysis
of these proposals; we have presented both the pros and
cons so you can better understand the meaning and
possible consequences of each amendment. It is
our intention to simply explain the amendments along
with our endorsed positions to help you decide.
2006
Ballot Initiatives/Referendums
V
Amendment No. 1:
RDC says vote NO
State Planning and Budget
Process:
PRO:
This amendment will be hailed as a way to take control
of government spending by forcing budgetary
constraints. In other words, government could
spend only (up to 3% of non-recurring revenue) what is
in the budget. Sound great?
CON:
It's a trap. This would allow, rather, FORCE, the
state government to withhold funds that may be
desperately needed without being accountable to the
electorate. "We have no choice ... our hands are
tied by that darn amendment!" Forget any big
plans for Florida requiring a financial commitment
(mass transit, smaller classrooms)- we would never be
able to fund for the future. The spending
constraints, though, would likely most negatively
affect seniors (medical needs) and the poor (social
programs) and we would have no one to blame but
ourselves.
RDC Analysis
Unless you're a lawyer, the
language of this amendment will give readers a big
headache and will slow voting on election day as people
try to understand it at the polls. While we all
want government to spend within a budget, we don't need
a constitutional amendment that ties their hands from
funding what is necessary for us. RDC
strongly opposes this amendment.
V Amendment No. 3:
RDC says vote NO
Requiring Broader Support for
Constitutional Amendments or Revisions
PRO:
It's true that some past amendments have been duds.
This process is overused and the results have often
been ignored by our elected leaders. If we make
it harder to pass future amendments, we could get rid
of all this junk. Consider next year's proposed
ban on gay marriage amendment- 60% would help us defeat
it.
CON:
This is the only way citizens in Florida have real
input in making laws. We do not want to make it
harder for us to have our say so. You would be
voting to take away your own rights. Simple
majority rules.
RDC Analysis
When you look at who is
supporting this (Big Industry & Corporations) you'll
vote NO. These interests want to prevent us from
passing pesky things such as raising the minimum wage,
cleaning up the Everglades and insurance reforms
benefiting people. RDC strongly opposes
this amendment, as does every citizen group in the
state.
V
Amendment No. 4:
RDC says vote YES
Protect People, Especially
Youth, from Addiction, Disease, and Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco
PRO: After the state of Florida won a
huge monetary settlement from the tobacco industry,
those funds were used for a state of the art campaign
that actually lowered the smoking rate among our youth.
It was hailed as one of the best in the nation.
So, naturally, when Bush became Governor, he killed the
campaign. Well, it was de-funded. The
government used the tobacco money for whatever it
wanted. After gathering signatures to put this on
the ballot, citizens are now demanding the money be
spent (the amendment calls for 15% of annual tobacco
money) for its intended purpose. It's common
sense.
CON:
Even the tobacco industry isn't opposing this.
State legislators have egg on their face for what
they've been doing. Anyone really want to oppose
funding anti-smoking campaigns paid for by the tobacco
industry?
RDC Analysis
Do the right thing, make the
state spend the tobacco money on anti-smoking programs.
That's what the money is for! RDC strongly
supports this amendment.
V Amendment No. 6:
RDC says vote NO
Increased Homestead Exemption
for Low Income Seniors
PRO: If anyone deserves tax relief, it's
low income seniors. No one could support a
reliance on poor old people to maintain the tax base
for the state, could they?
CON:
An extra exemption already exists (do you remember we
voted for this before?) for an extra $25,000- for
counties and municipalities that "opt in."
Seniors could be eligible for up to $75,000 in
exemptions if this passes. The loss of revenue in
rural counties could be especially catastrophic,
closing police and fire departments. This is a
ploy by the Republican legislature to turn out their
base to vote for tax cuts.
RDC Analysis
On face value this seems like a
worthy measure. But it is disingenuous, largely
because the same tax relief is already available and is
being used merely as a ploy for voter turnout.
RDC reluctantly opposes this amendment but fully
anticipates its passage.
V Amendment No. 7:
RDC says vote YES
Permanently Disabled Veterans'
Discount on Homestead Ad Valorem Tax
PRO: Florida veterans over 65 who were
disabled in combat would be eligible for a discount on
their homestead exemption tax equal to the percentage
of their disability. In other words, a 40%
disabled vet would get a 40% discount on homestead
taxes. We should do all we can to show our
gratitude for war veterans, especially those who are
injured and permanently disabled from combat duty.
CON:
Those veterans are going to have to jump through a lot
of hoops to get this discount. They will have to
provide proof: they were living in Florida at
the time they entered military service, they were
injured in combat, they were honorably discharged, and
the rating percentage of their disability.
Because they also must be over the age of 65, Iraq-II
war vets wouldn't be eligible (unless some are over
65?).
RDC Analysis
Veterans may have to go through a
lot of paperwork and we believe that not a large number
will likely qualify (those over 65 who entered the
military while living in Florida and were disabled in
combat and honorably discharged- and can prove it).
But if this helps even just a handful of war veterans
RDC believes it is worthy of support.
V
Amendment No. 8:
RDC says vote YES
Eminent Domain
PRO: This amendment could help to
undermine
the sneaky practice of local governments
seizing private property under eminent domain and
giving it to developers. The US Supreme Court
ruled that's OK. We feel this is a positive step,
and if anything, doesn't go far enough to protect
homeowners.
CON: Some believe it could have
unintended consequences and may benefit corporate
landowners more than individuals. It can be
overruled by a supermajority, so homeowners could still
be losers.
RDC Analysis
It's better than nothing.
It does show that the legislature is again posturing,
though, trying to appear that they are going to protect
you from... themselves? RDC supports this
amendment though we doubt its effectiveness.
RDC ENDORSES:
NO 1, 3 & 6
µ
YES 4, 7 & 8
ÆAgree
or disagree? If you have something you would
like to share regarding this year's Constitutional
Amendments, feel free to email us!
ÆNeed
to see the amendments in the original language as they
appear on the ballot?
Constitutional Amendments 2006
