[Nfbf-l] {Spam?} Summary of 2012 Florida amendments

[Sherri]

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