ORLANDO, Fla. — Whether a voter lives in Pensacola, Ocala or Key West, everyone who heads to the voting booth (or submits their ballot by mail) in the Sunshine State this fall will have six questions they’ll have to answer.
▶ WATCH CHANNEL 9 EYEWITNESS NEWS
Two of the six proposed constitutional amendments – on marijuana and abortion -- are well known, with plenty of advertising from groups supporting and opposing them.
The four others have received comparatively little attention.
To pass, each referendum would need 60% approval, rather than a majority vote.
Here’s a guide to all six questions:
Question 1: “To require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election.”
This amendment is relatively straightforward. Currently, school board candidates all file and run without a political party. A “yes” vote to this question would attach party labels like Democrat or Republican to their names and allow candidates to face off in a primary election, while a “no” vote would maintain the status quo.
Supporters of this amendment call it a transparency move that would give voters more information about the candidates at hand. The proposal follows Gov. DeSantis’ increasingly aggressive efforts about endorsing school board candidates in his push to remake Florida’s education system.
Opponents say this proposal would inject partisan politics into schools.
Question 2: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”
This referendum would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into Florida’s constitution and make it more difficult for future lawmakers to restrict hunting and fishing. It is backed by Florida’s agricultural commissioner and hunting and watersport-related interest groups.
“Amendment 2 preserves Florida’s rich traditions, conservation practices, outdoor lifestyle and economic opportunities,” a website explained. “As the Fishing Capital of the World, anglers come to chase everything from tarpon to red snapper, while hunters flock to Florida to chase waterfowl, and Osceola turkeys.”
Environmental groups – and newspaper editorial boards – have come out against this amendment. They said the inclusion of the “traditional methods” language is vague and would allow hunting methods that have been outlawed for their cruelty.
“Florida doesn’t need this language in the state constitution,” The Tampa Bay Times editorial board wrote. “State law already protects hunting and fishing, and there is no appetite in the Legislature, on either side of the partisan aisle, for that protection to change.”
Proponents of the legislation counter the claims by saying the amendment only protects hunting methods legal at the time of passage and does not undermine the Florida Wildlife Commission.
Question 3: “Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise.”
This question, one of two brought by citizen petitions, would allow the sale and possession of marijuana to adults. Private companies would be able to obtain a license to grow, and consumers would not need a doctor’s note to purchase cannabis products.
A “yes” vote would cause Florida to join 24 other states in legalizing the substance, while a “no” vote maintains the status quo.
“A core conservative value is the belief in personal freedom and responsibility,” the “Yes on 3″ website said. “Legalizing cannabis can be seen as an extension of this principle, where adults are free to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others.”
Opponents of the measure, including Gov. DeSantis, have criticized the effort because it was primarily backed by a marijuana dispensary company. They also said a constitutional amendment would prohibit the state from enforcing any meaningful regulation of the industry.
“Recreational marijuana will be all over the place – just like it is in Colorado and California,” the “no” website claimed. “The smell will be everywhere because the stores distributing pot will move into our neighborhoods, as the market almost triples in value. Triple the sales, triple the stores, triple the amount of pot available.”
The “yes” crowd counters by saying Florida is welcome to pass strict licensing and regulation requirements under the amendment, including quality controls and ventilation requirements for grow houses.
Question 4: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
This referendum effort was launched as Florida lawmakers restricted abortion access following the fall of Roe v. Wade.
A “yes” vote would allow abortions until approximately 24 weeks into a woman’s pregnancy, and after if a woman’s healthcare provider determined it to be necessary. A “no” vote would maintain the current six-week period.
Pro-choice groups backing the measure – namely, Floridians Protecting Freedom, supported by Planned Parenthood -- say many women don’t realize they’re pregnant by six weeks and the government should not be involved in private healthcare decisions.
“FPF’s mission is simple – passage of Amendment 4 to ensure that Floridians, not politicians, are able to decide what is best for their own lives and bodies,” the group’s website said. “We believe that the people of Florida should have the freedom to make their own personal health care decisions – including abortion – without interference from politicians.”
Opponents of the referendum claim the ballot language is deceiving and refer to the proposal as “extreme.” They said it leaves Florida without any protections to an unborn baby.
“It does not define “viability,” “health care provider,” “patient’s health,” or how serious a health concern would need to be to allow exceptions for late-term abortions,” their website noted. “These uncertainties create loopholes resulting in more abortions later in pregnancy than voters intend.”
FPF counters that the “no” groups are the ones misleading voters, pointing out that the term “healthcare provider” is clearly defined and used throughout Florida law.
Question 5: “Require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead.”
Voting “yes” on this amendment would increase the value of the homestead exemption offered to all homeowners’ primary residences, effectively lowering their tax burdens.
The referendum deals specifically with the $25,000 exemption that applies to non-school taxes and ties it to the rate of inflation.
For example, if the consumer price index rises 5% next year, a homeowner would get a $26,250 deduction instead, or an extra $1,250.
A “no” vote maintains that exemption at $25,000.
Supporters of this referendum say it will give families across the state breathing room by lowering their tax bills. Florida Tax Watch, a nonpartisan group, endorsed the referendum. The group said it wouldn’t have a significant impact on the state’s budget.
Opponents of the referendum, including newspaper editorial boards, say it will have an impact on county and municipal governments’ abilities to pay for roads, public safety and other measures by lowering the amount of income those governments can collect.
To counter this, they predict governments would adjust and either raise their tax rates or place more of the tax burden on renters.
Question 6: “Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution which requires public financing for campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.”
In Florida’s current election system, candidates are eligible to receive taxpayer dollars to help finance their campaigns – but only those running for statewide office, such as governor.
These funds match donations made by individual Floridians of $250 or less. Candidates can only qualify for these funds if they have an opponent, spend no more than $1 or $2 per Florida voter (depending on the office), raise a certain amount of money and limit loans from their own bank accounts and political party funds.
They must also submit an audit.
Florida is one of 14 states with a matching program. Miami-Dade County also has a program for candidates for its mayor and commission races.
Supporters of this measure, mostly lawmakers, say taxpayer funds should not go toward political candidates, and could instead be used for things that directly benefit the state’s citizens like housing and education.
Outside groups have piled up against this referendum.
“The matching fund program gives small-dollar donors a greater voice and encourages candidates to seek support from broad groups of voters,” The League of Women Voters said. “Public financing enables candidates who are not wealthy or who have more limited access to financing to be able to run for office, leading to a more diverse pool of candidates.”
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.