[Nfbf-l] {Spam?} Summary of 2012 Florida amendments
Sherri
flmom2006 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 00:34:45 UTC 2012
I hope you will find the following useful. Just sending out as info, not to
generate list discussion.
Sherri
SUMMARY OF 2012 PROPOSED FLORIDA BALLOT AMENDMENTS
The following is brought to you by the League of women Voters and can be
found at
http://orangecandidates.com/ballot-amendments/
Learn About the 2012 Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the Florida
Ballot
The constitutional amendments that will appear on Florida ballots on
Election Day in November
are sure to cause confusion in voters’ minds without some investigation. The
Florida ballot
amendments, if passed, go into the Florida Constitution, not the federal
Constitution, and
become permanent parts of the governing document for the state of Florida.
Ordinarily, a constitution is used to lay out the basic workings of
government. Florida’s
Constitution goes well beyond that, including a number of items that would
normally be addressed
by statute such as class size, tax exemptions, and minimum wage
requirements.
•Amendment 1: Health Care Services
Synopsis:
Amendment 1 is an attempt to exempt Floridians from a provision in the
federal health care law
known as the “individual mandate,” which requires all Americans to have
health insurance by 2014
or face financial penalties. If Amendment 1 were to pass, its legal standing
and significance
remain questionable. Legal scholars mostly agree that the fate of the
individual mandate rests
not with the states but with the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided in June
that the individual
mandate was constitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s right to impose the
individual mandate, making
it a law upheld as constitutional by the nation’s highest court. As a result
of this decision,
the legal standing of Amendment 1 becomes precarious. The passage or defeat
of Amendment 1 may
have no practical implications other than to send a message that a majority
of Florida’s voters
are either for or against the individual mandate.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
In 2010, shortly after the health care law’s passage, Florida lawmakers
proposed a
constitutional amendment to “nullify” the individual mandate, claiming the
federal government
overstepped its authority by forcing individuals to purchase insurance. That
proposal never made
it to the ballot. During the 2011 legislative session, Senate President Mike
Haridopolos,
R-Merritt Island, and state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, introduced this
proposed amendment.
It passed the Senate and House largely along party lines, with Republicans
in favor and
Democrats against.
A vote YES on Amendment 1:
•Would represent an attempt to opt Florida out of federal health care reform
requirements.
•Would add language to the Florida Constitution that could be found
unconstitutional under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution if determined by the courts to be
in conflict with
federal law.
•Would prevent the Florida Legislature from passing health care coverage
mandates
A vote NO on Amendment 1:
•Would mean that Florida should comply with federal health care reform
requirements.
•Would ensure that the Florida Constitution does not conflict with the U.S.
Constitution with
regard to health care coverage.
•Would allow the enactment of potential Florida laws that require health
care coverage.
» Florida’s Amendment 2 on 2012 BallotAmendment 2: Veterans Disabled Due
to Combat Injury;
Homestead Property Tax discount
Synopsis:
Amendment 2 relaxes the eligibility requirements for an existing property
tax discount offered
to disabled veterans. Currently, disabled veterans who meet the following
four requirements are
eligible for a property tax discount commensurate with the degree of their
disability:
1.Current Florida resident;
2.65 or older;
3.Disabled in combat;
4.Florida resident when they entered the military. If passed, Amendment 2
would eliminate that
fourth eligibility requirement.
As an example of how it works, a veteran eligible for the discount with a 50
percent disability
can claim 50 percent off the assessed value of his home. Roughly 1,200
veterans received that
discount in 2010, allowing them to subtract, on average, $24,000 from their
home’s value before
property taxes were calculated.
This proposed amendment would give that same tax break to veterans, age 65
and older, who were
disabled in combat but living in another state when they entered the
military so long as they
now claim Florida residency. The state estimates that the tax revenues
school districts and
local governments would lose if Amendment 2 passes is roughly $15 million
combined over the
first three years.
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Background:
Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, along with state Rep. Doug Holder,
R-Sarasota, introduced
resolutions during the 2011 legislative session to place this proposed
amendment on the November
2012 ballot. This measure won unanimous approval in the House and Senate.
A vote YES on Amendment 2:
•Would give the existing homestead tax exemption to disabled veterans who
were not Florida
residents at the time of entering military service.
•Would reduce property tax revenue for schools and local government services
by an estimated $15
million combined over the first three years of its implementation, and by an
estimated $7.6
million each year thereafter.
•Would expand the property tax exemption for some disabled veterans who are
not currently
eligible for a similar property tax exemption.
A vote NO on Amendment 2:
•Would not expand the property tax exemption to disabled veterans who were
not Florida residents
at the time of entering military service.
•Would not reduce property tax revenue for schools and local government
services by an estimated
$15 million over three years.
•Would not place a limitation on state revenue in the Florida Constitution
where it would be
difficult to modify or remove.
Amendment 3
: State Government Revenue Limitation
Synopsis:
Since 1995, Florida has set a cap for the amount of revenue it can spend
every year from taxes
and fees imposed on everything from gasoline and tobacco sales to business
licenses and auto
titles. Any excess revenue above the cap is to be deposited in the state’s
rainy day fund or
returned to taxpayers rather than be spent by the government.
The cap is considered by its backers to be a self-imposed restraint on
government growth. The
current cap is set using a formula based on changes in Florida personal
income (a cumulative
total of all personal earnings such as wages, dividends, rent or interest
income received in a
given year by Florida residents).
To date, state revenue collections have never exceeded the cap (largely due
to rising personal
income and falling tax rates).
If passed, Amendment 3 would impose a stricter formula for calculating the
revenue limit and, as
a result, increase the likelihood it would affect government spending. The
new formula would be
based on annual population growth and inflation, instead of personal income.
Those indicators
are considered less volatile than personal income growth and more likely to
constrain growth in
state revenues.
Critics fear the strict revenue limits would affect spending on necessary
services like schools
and public safety. According to one opposition group, the Center on Budget
and Policy
Priorities, the proposed amendment would result in allowable revenues 26
percent below
pre-recession levels (2006-07) by 2025, potentially resulting in major cuts
to all government
services.
Supporters say the cap is needed to limit government spending. The measure
passed the
Legislature largely along party lines, with Republicans in favor and
Democrats against.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Beginning in 2008, several proposals similar to Amendment 3, and sometimes
referred to as the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), were defeated in the Legislature. Former
Senate President Mike
Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, is a long-time proponent of revenue caps and
made this proposal a
priority of the 2011 session.
A companion bill was sponsored by state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando.
The measure passed the
Senate and House largely along party lines, with Republicans in favor and
Democrats against.
A vote YES on Amendment 3:
•Would replace the existing state revenue limitation based on personal
income growth with a new,
more restrictive limitation based on changes in population and inflation.
•Would revise the current formula to further restrict government revenue
(taxes, licenses, fees,
fines, or charges for services) in good and poor economic times.
•Would limit the Legislature’s ability to increase revenue beyond what the
formula allows.
A vote NO on Amendment 3:
•Would maintain the existing state revenue limitation based on personal
income growth.
•Would make it less likely that state growth and public services would be
constrained by a
revenue limitation.
•Would preserve the Legislature’s current flexibility in responding to
budgetary concerns and
changing economic conditions.
Amendment 4
Property Tax Limitation; Property Value Decline; Reduction for
Non-Homestead
Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal
Synopsis:
This proposal would extend tax breaks to property owners and to first-time
homebuyers. If
passed, it would:
1.Prevent the assessed value of homesteaded and specified non-homesteaded
properties from
increasing if the market value of that property decreases compared to the
previous year. This
would allow the Legislature to eliminate a provision in the current law
known as “recapture,”
which can cause the taxable value of a property to rise even if its market
value drops;
2.Reduce from 10 percent to 5 percent the cap on annual increases in the
assessments of
specified non-homesteaded properties such as residential rental property,
seasonal homes and
commercial property;
3.Authorize a homestead exemption to first-time homebuyers or to buyers who
have not owned
property during the previous three years or longer. The exemption would
phase out over five
years and be equal to 50 percent of the market value of the property but not
greater than the
median market value of all homesteaded properties in the county where the
property is located;
4.Delay until 2013 the scheduled repeal of assessment caps on certain types
of non-homesteaded
properties. Proponents say the tax breaks will stimulate the housing and
commercial real estate
markets. They also say it will help property owners in a down economy.
Critics say the proposal
will hurt cash-strapped school districts, cities and counties already forced
to cut services.
Total tax revenue losses to local governments and schools over a three-year
period have been
estimated at nearly $1 billion.
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Background:
Perceived inequities in the property tax system led business interests to
propose tax breaks for
non-homesteaded properties and first-time buyers. State Rep. Chris Dorworth,
R-Heathrow, and
Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, sponsored the bills. It represents the
most significant
impact on property tax revenues for schools and local governments of any of
the proposals on the
2012 ballot. It passed overwhelmingly (105-11) in the House, but was closer
in the Senate
(25-12).
A vote YES on Amendment 4:
•Would reduce local government revenue by cutting in half the taxable rate
on non-homestead
property, such as commercial income properties and second homes.
•Would reduce local government revenue by prohibiting increases in the
assessed value of
homestead property and certain non-homestead property in any year where the
market value of the
property decreases.
•Would reduce local government revenue by extending an additional homestead
tax exemption to
some first-time homeowners.
A vote NO on Amendment 4:
•Would maintain existing property tax exemptions.
•Would prevent schools and local governments from losing an estimated $1
billion in property tax
revenue over three years.
•Would not place a limitation on local government revenue in the Florida
Constitution where it
would be difficult to modify or remove.
Amendment 5: State Courts
Synopsis:
This proposed amendment would alter the balance of power among the judicial,
legislative and
executive branches of government. Its most meaningful provision is the one
granting the state
Senate confirmation power over appointees to the Florida Supreme Court.
Currently, the governor
fills openings on the court by appointing a nominee from a list presented by
a judicial
nominating commission.
If passed, this amendment would allow the Senate to reject or approve
nominees. It would also
give members of the state House of Representatives expanded access to
confidential files
involving judges accused of misconduct, and would give lawmakers the right
to repeal procedural
court rules, such as speedy trial time limits or deadlines for filing court
documents, with a
simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds majority vote, as currently
required.
Supporters of Amendment 5 say it would bring much needed change to a court
system that gives the
governor too much power in appointing judges. Opponents say the measure is a
dangerous attempt
to exert political influence over the judicial branch by giving legislators
more authority.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
This proposed amendment is the surviving part of a proposed overhaul of the
state court system
by House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. About a dozen states use a
gubernatorial
appointment system similar to the one Florida currently uses to select
Supreme Court justices,
according to the National Center for State Courts. Another dozen states have
some sort of state
Senate or other legislative confirmation process like that being proposed in
Amendment 5. The
remaining states let the public choose their Supreme Court justices, mostly
with nonpartisan
elections. The measure passed in the Senate and House largely along party
lines, with
Republicans in favor and Democrats against.
A vote YES on Amendment 5:
•Would require the Florida Senate to vote to confirm or reject a
gubernatorial appointment to
the state Supreme Court.
•Would allow the Legislature to repeal statewide judicial rules adopted by
the Supreme Court by
a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote.
•Would expand the ability of the state House of Representatives to review
confidential files
about judges, even if they are not being considered for impeachment.
A vote NO on Amendment 5:
•Would maintain the current method of selecting justices for the Florida
Supreme Court by
allowing the governor to make appointments without legislative approval.
•Would continue to require a two-thirds vote to repeal statewide judicial
rules adopted by the
Supreme Court.
•Would continue to require that files on judges remain confidential unless
needed for use in
consideration of impeachment.
Amendment 6: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of
Abortion Rights
Synopsis:
Federal law prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for most abortions
(exceptions include
rape, incest and threats to a mother’s life). If passed, Amendment 6 would
enshrine those
prohibitions in the state constitution.
Because Florida law already prohibits public funds from being spent on
abortion, this would not
change current abortion funding practices. Rather, passage would show a
majority of the state’s
voters support existing federal restrictions.
There is another provision in the amendment, however, that would affect
abortion law in Florida.
That provision concerns a privacy right in the state Constitution that is
sometimes used to
thwart anti-abortion measures in Florida. In 1980, Florida voters passed an
amendment that says,
in part: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from
governmental
intrusion into the person’s private life…” This privacy clause has been
cited when defending
abortion rights in Florida.
If passed, Amendment 6 would prevent courts from concluding in abortion
cases that the right to
privacy in Florida is broader in scope than the right to privacy afforded in
the U.S.
Constitution. Supporters say this amendment puts the state on even footing
with the federal
government. Opponents say it is a preemptive strike on a woman’s right to
choose.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Attempts by lawmakers over the years to pass abortion restrictions, such as
parental
notification for pregnant minors and laws requiring doctors to counsel women
about abortion
alternatives, were rejected by courts that cited the state’s constitutional
right to privacy.
Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, and state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala,
sponsored this measure in
2011. It passed the House and Senate largely along party lines, with
Republicans in favor and
Democrats against.
A vote YES on Amendment 6:
•Would mean that Florida’s constitutional right to privacy is not applicable
to abortion-related
issues.
•Could allow more restrictive abortion laws to be found constitutional by
Florida courts.
•Would restate in the Florida Constitution federal and state law that
prohibits public funds
from being used for abortion or health insurance coverage of abortion.
A vote NO on Amendment 6:
•Would continue to allow Florida’s constitutional right to privacy to
include abortion-related
issues.
•Would continue to extend Florida’s constitutional right to privacy to any
future attempts to
restrict abortion.
•Would not place language in the Florida Constitution that prohibits public
funding of abortion
where it would be difficult to modify or remove.
Amendment 8: Religious Freedom
Synopsis:
Amendment 8 revives longstanding debates over the separation of church and
state. It would
repeal a 126-year-old provision in the state Constitution that prohibits
taxpayer funding of
religious institutions.
The provision – commonly known as the “no aid” provision – states more
unequivocally than the
U.S. Constitution that state funds not be spent “directly or indirectly” in
support of any
entity that promotes religion. If passed, the amendment would remove that
prohibition. An
important subplot within Amendment 8 concerns its impact on future school
voucher programs.
Past programs that included religiously affiliated schools have been deemed
unconstitutional
partly due to the “no aid” provision. Amendment 8 would remove that obstacle
to restarting these
programs, which allow parents to remove students from failing public schools
and send them to
private schools at taxpayers’ expense.
Supporters say the “no aid” provision discriminates against religious
organizations. They argue
this proposal offers support to groups with religious affiliations that
provide valuable
community services, like prison ministries or church-run after-school
programs.
Opponents say Amendment 8 will divert money from public schools and other
public funding
recipients and that is blurs the separation of church and state. Opponents
point out that many
religious groups, such as Catholic Charities, can receive public funding
under the current law
provided they do not promote their religion.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
This originally was Amendment 7 on the ballot, but a legal challenge by
opponents resulted in
the rewriting of some of the ballot language and its reinstatement as
Amendment 8. State Rep.
Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, and state Rep. Steve Precourt, R-Orlando, and Sen.
Thad Altman,
R-Melbourne, sponsored measures in the House and Senate. It passed largely
along party lines,
with Republicans in favor and Democrats against.
A vote YES on Amendment 8:
•Would repeal the “no aid” provision in the Florida Constitution and allow
public money to go to
private religious institutions.
•Would allow the expansion of Florida’s school voucher program to religious
institutions and
could result in money being directed to private religious schools at the
expense of public
schools.
•Would allow for a greater number of religious programs to be supported by
taxpayer funding.
A vote NO on Amendment 8:
•Would maintain the “no aid” provision in the state Constitution that
prohibits the government
from funding religious institutions and groups that promote religion.
•Would maintain the Constitutional provision the courts have cited when
rejecting school voucher
programs that fund religiously affiliated schools.
•Would maintain the separation of church and state as provided by the state
Constitution since
1885.
Amendment 9:
Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of
Military Veteran or First
Responder
Synopsis:
Amendment 9 grants full homestead property tax relief to the surviving
spouses of military
veterans who die from service-connected causes while on active duty, and to
the surviving
spouses of police, firefighters and other first responders who die in the
line of duty. In
short, the surviving spouses deemed eligible will not pay any property
taxes.
For a spouse to be eligible, the deceased veteran or first responder must
have been a permanent
resident of Florida as of Jan. 1 of the year they died. That same residency
requirement applies
to the surviving spouses of first responders. First responders are defined
as law enforcement
officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians
and paramedics.
The proposed amendment covers full-time, part-time or volunteer first
responders. State law has
granted full homestead property tax relief to surviving military spouses
since 1997. This
proposed amendment enshrines that exemption in the state Constitution while
adding eligibility
to the spouses of first responders.
Surviving spouses of veterans or first responders who died years ago can
apply for eligibility
retroactively if Amendment 9 passes, although the tax relief is for future
taxes only; they will
not receive refunds for any past taxes paid.
The state estimates that this amendment, if passed, would reduce local
school and government tax
revenues by about $600,000 statewide in the first year it is in effect.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Over a two-year span in 2010 and 2011, two dozen Florida law enforcement
officers were killed in
the line of duty. This amendment is meant to recognize their sacrifice by
extending the same tax
relief to their surviving spouses that is currently offered to the surviving
spouses of military
veterans who died while on active duty. State Rep. Shawn Harrison, R-Temple
Terrace, and state
Sen. Jim Norman, R-Tampa, sponsored the measure, which won unanimous
approval in the House and
Senate.
A vote YES for Amendment 9:
•Would grant full homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouses of
first responders who
die in the line of duty.
•Would enshrine in the state Constitution a law that currently offers full
property tax relief
to surviving spouses of veterans who die while on active duty.
•Would allow spouses whose partners died before the passage of the Amendment
to be eligible for
the tax exemption.
A vote NO for Amendment 9:
•Would maintain existing property tax exemptions.
•Would prevent local governments from losing a combined $600,000 in
estimated property tax
revenues over the course of a year.
•Would not place a limitation on local government revenue in the Florida
Constitution where it
would be difficult to modify or remove.
Amendment 10: Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption
Synopsis:
Most taxpayers are familiar with paying property taxes on a home. This
proposed amendment is
about taxes assessed on tangible personal property used in a business or to
earn income.
Furniture, fixtures, machinery, tools, shelving, signs and equipment are
examples of property
that is subject to the state’s tangible personal property tax. By April 1 of
each year, anyone
owning tangible personal property that is used in a business or to earn
income must file a
return with the local property appraiser.
Under current law, the first $25,000 of tangible personal property is exempt
from taxation. If
passed, Amendment 10 would boost that exemption to $50,000. It would also
allow cities and
counties to grant additional tangible personal tax exemptions beyond the
$50,000 exemption.
The state estimates that tangible personal property taxes represented an
estimated 7.6 percent
of the total county property taxes levied in Florida in fiscal year 2011-12.
The corresponding
amount for cities was 6.1 percent. Statewide, if Amendment 10 passes, the
added exemption amount
proposed would reduce property tax collections by $61 million over the first
three years
combined, according to state estimates.
Supporters say it will help small businesses. Opponents question whether it
will benefit the
economy and warn it will further erode the local tax base.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Lawmakers hoping to bring tax relief to business owners are behind this
proposed amendment. The
measure was sponsored by state Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, and state
Sen. Nancy Detert,
R-Venice. The measure won unanimous approval in the Senate and
near-unanimous approval in House.
A vote YES for Amendment 10:
•Would double the tax exemption on tangible personal property.
•Would allow cities and counties to grant additional tangible personal
property tax exemptions.
•Would reduce local property tax revenues across the state by an estimated
$61 million combined
over the first three years it is implemented.
A vote NO for Amendment 10:
•Would leave the tax exemption on tangible personal property at its current
rate.
•Would not reduce local property tax revenues across the state by an
estimated $61 million
combined over three years.
•Would not place a limitation on local government revenue in the Florida
Constitution where it
would be difficult to modify or remove.
Amendment 11: Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who
Maintain Long-Term
Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value
Synopsis:
Amendment 11 authorizes cities and counties to grant full homestead property
tax relief to
low-income seniors who have lived in their home for at least 25 years. In
short, it would
eliminate the entire property tax bill for qualifying seniors.
Homeowners who meet the following requirements would be eligible:
1.Aged 65 and older;
2.Have a household income of less than $27,030;
3.Own a home with a market value of less than $250,000;
4.Have lived in the home for at least 25 years.
City councils and county commissions must pass the exemption by a
super-majority vote (a
majority plus one) before the full exemption can be offered. The state
estimates that the tax
revenues local governments would lose if Amendment 11 passes, and if every
city and county in
the state were to approve the exemption, would be a combined $18.5 million
over the first two
years it was offered.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Some low-income seniors are struggling to stay in their homes as the state
deals with the
housing collapse and other recessionary impacts. This measure was sponsored
by state Rep. Jose
Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, and state Sen. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, and won
unanimous approval in the
House and Senate.
A vote YES on Amendment 11:
•Would authorize cities and counties to grant a full homestead exemption to
certain low-income
seniors.
•Would require a super-majority vote by local governments to grant the
exemption.
•Would reduce tax revenues to local governments across the state by an
estimated $18.5 million
combined over the first two years it is implemented.
A vote NO on Amendment 11:
•Would retain current property tax exemptions for seniors.
•Would not place a potential limitation on local government revenue in the
Florida Constitution
where it would be difficult to modify or remove.
•Would prevent local governments from granting an exemption that could cost
an estimated $18.5
million in tax revenues combined over the first two years of implementation.
Amendment 12: Appointment of Student Body President to Board of Governors of
the State
University System
Synopsis:
The state’s 11 public universities are part of the State University System,
which is governed by
a 17-member Board of Governors. Under current law, the president of the
Florida Student
Association is, by virtue of the position, a member of the Board of
Governors.
The student body presidents of the various universities comprise the Florida
Student Association
(FSA), chooses a president who then joins the Board of Governors. Not every
university is an
active FSA member, however. Currently, 10 of the 11 universities take an
active role. Florida
State University prefers not to pay the FSA dues, feeling its interests are
better represented
in other ways. Under the current system, student council presidents from
schools that are
non-FSA participants, like FSU, can never be the student representative on
the Board of
Governors.
If passed, Amendment 12 would instruct the Board of Governors to create a
new council consisting
of the student body presidents of all 11 universities. Presumably, all 11
universities would
participate. The chair of that new council would replace the chair of the
FSA as the student
representative to the Board of Governors.
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Background:
Florida State University chooses not to participate in the current
association of university
student council presidents. This measure would create a new organization
that FSU would join. It
was sponsored by state Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, and state Sen.
Bill Montford,
D-Apalachicola. It. won unanimous approval in the House and near-unanimous
approval in the
Senate.
A vote YES on Amendment 12:
•Would create a new council of student body presidents from which the
student representative to
the Board of Governors would be selected.
•Would remove the Florida Student Association president from the Board of
Governors.
•Would require all state university student body presidents to participate
in the newly created
council.
A vote NO on Amendment 12:
•Would not authorize the creation of a new council of student body
presidents.
•Would retain the Florida Student Association’s current role on the Board of
Governors.
•Would require that state universities participate in the Florida Student
Association in order
to be represented by the student member of the Board of Governors.
How Amendments Come Before Voters
There are a number of ways that constitutional amendments can come before
the voters. Most
frequently, the Legislature puts them on the ballot. All of the amendments
placed on the ballot
this year are by the Legislature. The next most common method is the citizen
initiative process,
in which citizens collect petitions in order to get an amendment on the
ballot. There are no
citizen initiatives on the 2012 ballot.
Quick Facts:
•Amendments need to pass with a 60% margin to become law
•All were generated by the Florida Legislature within past 2 years
•No citizen initiatives are on the 2012 ballot
More information about the NFBF-L
mailing list