I'm voting early and have waited until just now to review the amendments on the ballot. What do my fellow Gunshine staters think?

No. 1 Article VI, Section 2: Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections

No. 2 Article X, Section 24: Raising Floridas Minimum Wage

No. 3 Article VI Section 5: All voters vote in primary elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet

No. 4 Article XI Sections 5 and 7: Voter approval of Constitutional Amendments.

No. 5 Article VII Section 4 and Article XII: Limitations on Homestead Property Tax Assessments; increased portability period to transfer accrued benefit

No. 6 Article VII Section 6 and Article XII: Ad Valorem Tax discount for spouses of certain deceased veterans who had permeant, combat related disiblities


https://www.flchamber.com/poli...tional-amendments-2/

Normally I'm inclined to vote no, the people shouldn't be able to place constitutional laws on the books, skirting the normal process of House, Senate, Governor.

I'm for a constitutional amendment removing the ability to amend the constitution, it's now become the de-facto way to push items through that the legislature won't vote on for special interests. It needs to be stopped...

We had a group here trying to get a constitutional amendment banning semi-auto firearms in the state. It just allows special interests to buy laws...


The Republican party Guide locally says:


1) Yes - US Citizen to Vote - This is already the law, not sure why we need another one.
2) No - Forced wage increases - increases Min Wage - A John Morgan Enterprises program
3) No - Override Parties - Nope, allows open primary for all voters.
4) Yes - Second Vote - This effectively shuts down John Morgans D party machine from posting new anti conservative laws on the books.
5) Yes - Save Homes - Allows homeowners one extra year to transfer tax benefits.
6) Yes - Transfer Homestead - Another Vet benefit extending the Homestead on a property for Veterans discounts to the spouse.

Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

This.

Still will hold my nose, we are using the Constitutional amendment process for items that should be going through the legislature - for me the most important one is two stage approval of amendment changes/proposals. Hopefully this speed bump stops this abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:


I'm for a constitutional amendment removing the ability to amend the constitution, it's now become the de-facto way to push items through that the legislature won't vote on for special interests. It needs to be stopped...

agree

i am inclined to vote NO for all of them

slug it out and win your law in the legislature if it's such a great idea

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

I Voted yes on Number 4 as it requires approval of the voters in two separate elections rather than the current one. Homestead law changes must be constitutional amendments because the Homestead laws are existing articles of the constitution. Likewise the word change to "only a citizen" changes wording in an existing article of the constitution. The legislature cannot change the constitution themselves-amendments must be approved by the electorate in the next General Election. I agree with not using the amendment process in lieu of legislation to create new law.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
I Voted yes on Number 4 as it requires approval of the voters in two separate elections rather that the current one.

Correct, a yes is what you want on 4.

This is how you slow the Constitutional amendment process down now, until we get the electors to find a way to get rid of the process altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Yep

Yes, no, no, yes, yes, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Yep. What he said.

Yes no no yes yes yes.

I am certainly voting for the last one. As I understand it, my wife will get the same discount on her property taxes as I do, after I die.

Even our very liberal newspaper, The Tampa Bay Times is against the raising of the minimum wage to $15. Only time I can recall I ever agreed with them.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:


The Republican party Guide locally says:


1) Yes - US Citizen to Vote - This is already the law, not sure why we need another one.
2) No - Forced wage increases - increases Min Wage - A John Morgan Enterprises program
3) No - Override Parties - Nope, allows open primary for all voters.
4) Yes - Second Vote - This effectively shuts down John Morgans D party machine from posting new anti conservative laws on the books.
5) Yes - Save Homes - Allows homeowners one extra year to transfer tax benefits.
6) Yes - Transfer Homestead - Another Vet benefit extending the Homestead on a property for Veterans discounts to the spouse.

I believe the Republican Party guide is misleading on #1. It’s not already a law. You do have to be a US citizen to vote for President, but not for state or local offices, or initiative. The intent is to keep non-citizens from voting on anything in FL. Although I’m sure it’s touted as a way to keep illegals from voting, it also affects people who are here legally, who have been here for years, and have been paying taxes for years. Since my mother was a green card holder for 50 years, and worked and paid taxes for 50 years, paid into social security, never got in trouble, and did everything required of someone to maintain their permanent legal resident alien status, I think she should be able to vote in state and local elections.

I’d be fine with a way to keep illegals from voting, but not at the expense of people who are here legally.

No on 2 and 3, yes on everything else.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
I think she should be able to vote in state and local elections.

Then she should have become a US citizen. And no one, let me repeat that, no one should be allowed to keep a green card for 50 years. Green cards should be short term exemptions for people to be in the US, not a way around citizenship.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
I think she should be able to vote in state and local elections.

Then she should have become a US citizen. And no one, let me repeat that, no one should be allowed to keep a green card for 50 years. Green cards should be short term exemptions for people to be in the US, not a way around citizenship.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Parents have both been here for 40 years, both now citizens.

If you want to vote, become a citizen. If not, no harm no foul, you still enjoy a wonderful country and all of it’s benefits (and you pay taxes). It’s not as if the barrier to citizenship is impossibly high.

quote:

I’d be fine with a way to keep illegals from voting, but not at the expense of people who are here legally.

There is a big difference in being a legal citizen of the USA and being here legally. I have to agree with BD, because the alternative will have millions on millions of non USA citizens determining local political positions.

How long before we get the "he/she's been here xx years and paid taxes and deserves to vote in federal elections"

When it comes to managing money, elections, ballots, you don't want non citizens determining the countries direction. That is a California election position, let everyone living there vote.

I am happy to say I helped in the lobbying for part of No. 5. In Florida, (existing) properties are assessed as of January 1.

Essentially, if you sell your house on Jan 1, you have two years minus one day of portability. If you sell your house on Dec 31, you have one year and one day.

This amendment will essentially allow two years from January of the year you sold, but potentially up to almost 3 years.