13 Amendments on the ballot, some are stacked with multiple changes.

Looking for input on these, most of the intel I've found is by the local papers across the state and that makes for questionable information as a source.

We've got a couple of weeks to discuss...

Link to the ballot measures below

So far I'm inclined to agree with amendments 1 and 2, 5, 11, 12,

No on 4, 7, 9, 13

Maybe on 6

Link to Ballotpedia on FL Amendments

Agree with a 'no' on 7,9,13.

Still trying to understand the ramifications of the rest.

I am voting NO (if I am reading it correctly) on amendment 4.

The way I am reading this a NO vote would mean that after convicted felons serve their sentences and pay whatever penalties/restitution that they owe they may THEN go before the board and petition to have their voting rights restored. A practice that has been in place for quite some time.

A YES vote means the convicted felons would automatically have voting rights restored upon completion of sentence and paying of any penalties/restitution.

I personally would rather these people individually petition for their voting rights being restored.

Number 2 makes a current tax law that expires this year permanent, while it may be a good idea to have that tax law permanent running taxation by amendment vs through legislation may or may not be a good idea, however, it would raise taxes on non homestead property to the tune of $700 million a year, not sure what that does to new business, plus the League of Women Voters and Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida are against it, making it a pretty much no brainer for a yes vote

quote:

Originally posted by rsbolo:
I am voting NO (if I am reading it correctly) on amendment 4.

The way I am reading this a NO vote would mean that after convicted felons serve their sentences and pay whatever penalties/restitution that they owe they may THEN go before the board and petition to have their voting rights restored. A practice that has been in place for quite some time.

A YES vote means the convicted felons would automatically have voting rights restored upon completion of sentence and paying of any penalties/restitution.

I personally would rather these people individually petition for their voting rights being restored.

Correct, I had that backward myself,

Florida Amendment 4, the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is on the ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[3]

A "yes" vote supports this amendment 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.


A "no" vote opposes this amendment 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.

Maybe I think about this stuff a bit differently, but 'at this point in time', I'm considering voting NO on all of the amendments. In my view, the legislature is punting (again) and pawning these issues off on voters to deal with because they're too incompetent or cowardly to do the jobs they were elected to do. Nothing in this list of amendments couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) be dealt with via legislation.

I think the constitutional amendment process should be for very specific issues that do not lend themselves to being addressed via legislation, not a catch all for the stuff the losers in Tallahassee don't want to deal with.

The James Madison Institute has a conservative guide to the FL amendments.
James Madison Institute

moved to FL recently and registered when we did the car registrations

thanks for the info

-------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Maybe I think about this stuff a bit differently, but 'at this point in time', I'm considering voting NO on all of the amendments. In my view, the legislature is punting (again) and pawning these issues off on voters to deal with because they're too incompetent or cowardly to do the jobs they were elected to do. Nothing in this list of amendments couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) be dealt with via legislation.

I think the constitutional amendment process should be for very specific issues that do not lend themselves to being addressed via legislation, not a catch all for the stuff the losers in Tallahassee don't want to deal with.

I share this philosophy and believe policy-makers are elected to address these very types of issues.

Even if I happen to agree with a particular proposed amendment I believe that the legislature via the legislative process is generally the best avenue for fleshing out and implementing public policy.

I am voting no across the board. We have elected officials to enact laws.

Just vote NO. They have riders with other unpleasant actions attached to the main issue. Don't get suckered. It is just wrong that they are allowed to do that.

A couple of you are voting against #7 which if I understand correctly, helps guarantee certain benefits to service members and it also demands a justification from universities that wish to raise the cost of tuition.

I don't see the negative, so I'm hoping you can tell me what I'm missing.

And respectfully, I disagree with voting no simply because we want it handled by law makers. I am, however, researching to understand the riders that come with each.

quote:

Originally posted by Delmag Tech:
A couple of you are voting against #7 which if I understand correctly, helps guarantee certain benefits to service members and it also demands a justification from universities that wish to raise the cost of tuition.

I don't see the negative, so I'm hoping you can tell me what I'm missing.

And respectfully, I disagree with voting no simply because we want it handled by law makers. I am, however, researching to understand the riders that come with each.

7 is another bundled amendment that consists of unrelated issues.

1. I don't think a supper majority should be required by the board of trustees of a state school to raise fees. If it included tuition I might feel different but tuition is not included by the definition of fees.

2. I don't think we should have the state constitution require that the state has a state college system. yes we should have one, but do we need it written into the state constitutions?

3. survivor benefits sound great and will probably carry this amendment but it is too broad and will be paid out of the general fund. this will cover every cop, prison guard, EMT, paramedic, community safety office, member of the FL national guard and every member of the US military that is stationed in Fl as well as all active duty FL residents. (and I think I missed a few categories)
I can also see this leading to municipalities reducing or eliminating life insurance offered to their members.

quote:

Originally posted by Delmag Tech:
A couple of you are voting against #7 which if I understand correctly, helps guarantee certain benefits to service members and it also demands a justification from universities that wish to raise the cost of tuition.

I don't see the negative, so I'm hoping you can tell me what I'm missing.

And respectfully, I disagree with voting no simply because we want it handled by law makers. I am, however, researching to understand the riders that come with each.

First off, why should 'any' group be gifted special benefits? And even if that is something a majority of the state wants, why the hell would that require (or warrant) a constitutional amendment? And an amendment to dictate how colleges have to justify price increases is beyond silly. Colleges and state government are in bed together, so 'nothing' will stop colleges from raising prices if that's their goal. Nothing. And again, this issue is somehow worthy of being an amendment to the state constitution?

Either we elect state representatives to go to Tallahassee and help govern the state, or we abolish the legislature and run the state via mob rule at the ballot box. Pick one because there is 'zero' point in maintaining both.

Great. Thanks for both responses. I'm checking NO on 7. My brain didn't notice 'fees' and interpreted it to be about tuition.

I think you're explanation also answers #3 for me - I"ll vote no to leave that to the law makers.

However, I"m pretty stumped on #6. Helping victims of crime sounds good, but what does "creating constitutional rights for victims of crime" really mean? It seems awfully vague.

quote:

Originally posted by Delmag Tech:
Great. Thanks for both responses. I'm checking NO on 7. My brain didn't notice 'fees' and interpreted it to be about tuition.

I think you're explanation also answers #3 for me - I"ll vote no to leave that to the law makers.

However, I"m pretty stumped on #6. Helping victims of crime sounds good, but what does "creating constitutional rights for victims of crime" really mean? It seems awfully vague.

Again, 6 is a bundle of unrelated issues. Can someone explain to me the logic used to bundle these issues together?

The victim rights issue sound good but you are correct in saying it is vague and that has a lot to do with voting no on it.

The "Requires judges and hearing officers to independently interpret statutes and rules rather then deferring to government agency's interpretations." part of 6 is the main issue I have. I expect this rule to add more work and new infrastructure on an already overloaded court system.

Thanks much for confirming. That's a no on 3,6, and 7.

I'm moving on to researching judges...

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
Again, 6 is a bundle of unrelated issues. Can someone explain to me the logic used to bundle these issues together?

Simple political BS. Give people something they are prone vote for, and then add a couple of other unrelated issues others want passed but know they couldn't get passed on their own (best example this time around is bans on vaping and offshore oil drilling).

Simple rule of thumb for me...add unrelated items to a ballot amendment and I'll vote 'no' on it every time.