Tuesday's List: The First Six Florida Constitutional Amendments on the Ballot

A few weeks ago I listed the thirteen amendments to the Florida State Constitution that are up for vote this November 6th...since then Amendment Eight has been withdrawn.  Today I'm discussing...very briefly...each of the first six amendments and my take on them.  For any of these amendments to be accepted in the state's constitution, they need to receive approval of at least 60% of the voters in the election.  I learned a lot about them from the website Be Ready to Vote...click on it to get some needed information, complete with pros and cons for each proposed amendment.  I plan to discuss Amendments Seven through Thirteen next Tuesday...

1 INCREASED HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION
This amendment increases up to a maximum additional $25,000 homestead tax exemption on properties valued at $100,000 or higher.  For those eligible who want to save tax money for themselves, this seems good...but local governments stand to lose an enormous amount of needed revenue should this pass...I'm voting "no".

2 LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
This is only for non-homesteaded property and limits to 10% the taxable value increase for such property.  Apartment renters and vacation home owners in particular stand to personally benefit from such an amendment, but as with the first one, this is estimated to cause a serious shortfall in local government revenue.  Again, I'm voting "no".

3 VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING IN FLORIDA
This amendment seems to be getting the most media attention, with supporters pointing to other states of differing political orientations that have this amendment in their constitutions...let the people decide if they want a casino or not, right?  But the way I see it, since casinos are a good source of government revenue, I'd rather see people voluntarily fund it playing at them than forced to through more compulsory taxes...and I really don't want to see Florida feel as if it needs to resort to a state income tax. Since voting "yes" will inhibit casinos, I'm voting "no" although I'm personally no fan of gambling...

4 VOTING RESTORATION
This amendment restores full voting rights to convicted felons...excluding murderers or those convicted of sex crimes...once they have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation or parole.  The current state law, which is undergoing a court challenge right now, mandates five years before a felon can even begin a tedious application process to restore voting rights.  I'm voting "yes"...I believe in the restoration of rights (and hope) after criminals have served their punishment, otherwise rehabilitation means nothing...

5 SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE, AUTHORIZE, OR RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES
This amendment, pushed by Tea Party Governor Rick Scott, makes it very difficult to raise taxes and may in the end necessitate cuts to important state services, including those to people unable to fend for themselves.  If you're a "never tax" Floridian, vote for it...I'm noting "no"...

6 RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES
While increasing the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75, this amendment gives emphasis to crime victims.  The website I referred to mentioned that many of this amendment's provisions are already state law.  There is also proposed a further time limitation on convicts' appeals...and eliminates a section already in law that prevents victims' rights from interfering with those of the accused.  I'm fine with letting judges work to 75. About the time limit on appeals I'm unsure...how far does it go?  But what killed this amendment for me was allowing victims' rights to impinge upon those of the accused...as a friend of mine recently remarked: innocent until proven guilty and let nothing unfairly interfere with due process.  This amendment in a revised form might be acceptable to me as I also care about crime victims, but I'm voting "no"...I'm also wary of the distorted TV ads in favor of it that appear to equate suspects with convicts...

One thing about the above amendments, as well as those that follow: the fact that they are on the ballot in the first place, to me, seems to be an indictment against the ability or willingness of a sitting  state government, composed of the governor, the senate, and the house...all controlled by the same party...to govern and pass meaningful legislation.  After all, didn't we elect them to represent us and pass laws? Oh well, as I said, the election is November 6th...