2018 Florida Constitutional Amendments and Sarasota Ballot Questions

Transcription

1 2018 Florida Constitutional Amendments and Sarasota Ballot Questions More complete information about each amendment, including ballot wording and the actual wording changes to the state constitution, is available at The League of Women Voters shows their positions at The DPCF - Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida s opinions are at Progressive Sarasota s webpage is progressivesarasota.org. Progressive Sarasota positions: YES on 3 (gambling), 4 (voting rights), 9 (drilling, vaping), 11 (criminal statutes) and 13 (dog racing) NO on 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12 There are twelve proposed Florida constitutional amendments on Florida ballots. Two of them (3 and 4) came via citizen petitions. Three of them (1, 2, and 5) came from the Florida Legislature. The other seven (6 through 13) came from the Republican dominated Florida Constitutional Revision Commission. (Number 8 was taken off the ballot by the courts.) 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. To pass, each amendment must receive at least 60 percent approval by voters. Unless otherwise indicated, changes to the Constitution take effect on Jan. 8, Below are summaries of each amendment, including the impact of a yes or no vote.

2 LEG = proposed by the Legislature; CRC = Proposed by the Constitution Revision Commission; CICA = Citizen Initiated Constitutional Amendment NOTE: The group Save My Constitution (savemyconstitution.com) opposes every measure placed on the November ballot by the CRC. 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, 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, 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.

3 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, Progressive Florida 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. Florida for Tax Fairness: 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, PROGRESSIVE FLORIDA: NO More at ase_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,

4 the amendment removes the scheduled repeal of such provisions in 2019 and shall take effect January 1, A YES vote on Amendment 2 would: Make permanent the 10 percent limit on increases in tax value for nonhomestead 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 PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: NO More at estead_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.

5 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 nontribal 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 [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

6 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 PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: YES Another argument for yes vote John Sowinski, chairman of Voters In Charge, stated: [12]

7 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 casinostyle 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 ambling_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.

8 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 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 More information on the MOV of past elections can be found here.

9 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 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 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.

10 DPCF: YES - Gives 1.5 million Floridians the right to vote after paying their debt to society PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: YES See John Oliver: More at r_felons_initiative_(2018) And Florida Rights Restoration Coalition - floridarrc.com 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.

11 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. PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: NO 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. 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

12 corporate tax loopholes and end the special treatment of the wealthiest taxpayers in the state. More at 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.

13 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. PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: NO More at ms_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)

14 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

15 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

16 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. PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: NO More at y_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 florida-supreme-court-strikes-amendment-8-fromnovember-ballot/

17 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 nonboard 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.

18 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-

19 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.

20 PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: YES More at Drilling_and_Ban_Vaping_in_Enclosed_Indoor_Workplaces_Amendment_(20 18) 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.

21 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. PROGRESSIVE SARSOTA: NO More at nt_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

22 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 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 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.

23 DPCF: NO - Impact of criminal statute portion is unclear and disputed. Other repealed provisions are already unenforceable or expired PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: YES More at s _Property_Ownership,_Delete_Obsolete_Provision_on_High- Speed_Rail,_and_Repeal_of_Criminal_Statutes%27_Effect_on_Prosecution_A mendment_(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.

24 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. PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: NO More at dment_(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 Other gaming activities are not affected A YES vote on Amendment 13 would:

25 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) PROGRESSIVE SARASOTA: YES More at Races_Amendment_(2018)

26 LOCAL AMENDMENTS With Progressive Sarasota Positions County Bond Referendum Sarasota County General Obligation Bonds for Legacy Trail Extension with Enhanced Safety and Connections To acquire and improve the Legacy Trail Extension railroad corridor as a safe trail for walking, running, and cycling with enhanced connectivity from North Port through Venice to downtown Sarasota, with additional improvements including safe crossings, overpasses, amenities, and increased accessibility, shall Sarasota County issue General Obligation bonds, not exceeding the maximum lawful interest rates, maturing within 20 years from each issuance, not exceeding $65 million payable from ad valorem taxes restricted to these purposes? YES, for Bonds No, against Bonds County Charter Amendment 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 County Charter Amendment Charter Review Board Charter Amendment Proposals to be Placed on Next General Election Only Shall Section 7.1 of the Sarasota County Charter be amended to allow Charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Board to be voted upon only on the next general election, rather than on the next countywide election? Yes, for the Charter amendment No, against the Charter amendment County Charter Amendment Charter Amendment to Reacquire and Retain Siesta Key Beach Road as Public Right of Way The County vacated an approximately 373-foot-long portion of Beach Road on Siesta Key in 2016, which had been closed for some time. The vacated portion of Beach Road is accessible by all means, including pedestrian, but not including motorized vehicles. Shall the Charter be amended to require the County to reacquire this portion of Beach Road, and reopen it for