Weekly comments from Dale Martin

Dale Martin
City Manager
Fernandina Beach
September 21, 12:00 a.m.

In anticipation of the lengthy November ballot, I will continue my brief overview of the proposed amendments to the State Constitution. The summaries of Questions Nos. 1-3 were presented last week. Please remember that proposed amendments must garner at least 60% of the vote in the affirmative to be incorporated into the State Constitution.

Question No. 4 is titled the “Voting Restoration Amendment.” This proposed amendment, included on the ballot through a citizen petition drive, automatically restores the voting rights of residents with felony convictions after they complete all terms associated with their criminal sentence, including parole or probation. This amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses (although the Governor and Cabinet may consider such instances on a case-by-case basis). The State Constitution currently provides for the restoration of voting rights for felons through a process developed in 2011. A “Yes” vote supports the automatic restoration of voting rights; a “No” vote opposes the automatic restoration.

This campaign regarding this amendment will be highly visible. Without revealing the objective of either group (one in favor; one, opposed), the two leading advocates are Floridians for a Fair Democracy and Floridians for a Sensible Voting Rights Policy. I mean, who can be against either group (one of them could have added apple pie or motherhood to tip the balance in its favor!). Expect a strong media push from supporters and opponents of Question No. 4.

Question No. 5 is the “Supermajority Vote to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes or Fees” (just reading that title and realizing that you will still have eight more Questions to consider is mind-numbing). Press on!

Currently, the Florida Legislature can pass new taxes or fees as well as increase existing taxes or fees with a simple majority in each Chamber (including through the use of multi-subject bills). This proposed amendment was included on the ballot through action of the Legislature (House: 80-29 [7 not voting]; Senate: 25-13). Through my initial research, support or opposition to this proposed amendment has not necessarily coalesced, but is scattered among individual state and local politicians.
If passed, the Legislature would require a two-thirds majority vote in each Chamber to levy a new tax or fee or to increase an existing tax or fee. Additionally, any such action would have to be the sole subject of a bill. This amendment would not apply to taxes or fees imposed by local governments (county, municipality, school) or special districts. A “No” vote would allow the Legislature to continue to enact new taxes through a simple majority vote.

The final eight proposed amendments were added to the ballot by the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), a thirty-seven member group of officials appointed by several State leaders. The CRC, in part or as a whole, considered over 2,000 proposed amendments submitted by the public as well as over 100 offered by its own members. Several of the CRC proposed amendments are complex in that the proposed amendments “bundle” disparate topics (just watch). The CRC rationalized the decision to bundle through the belief that the ballot would otherwise be too long to reasonably consider. Others subscribe to the “poison pill” theory. That is why your INFORMED vote matters.

Continuing with Question No. 6, titled “Rights of Crime Victims; Judges” (CRC vote: 34-3). The proposed amendment would provide crime victims (as well as families and other authorized representatives) with a series of rights, beginning with the onset of becoming a victim. The proposed rights are lengthy and detailed, adding twenty-five sections and subsections to Article I of the Constitution.

The other topic of Question No. 6 proposes to amend two different sections of Article V (Section 8 regarding mandatory retirement age and Section 21 referring to the relationship of judicial interpretations and administrative agency interpretations of state statutes or rules) and another in Article XII (establishing the effective date of the Article V, Section 8 revision).

As simply (?) as possible, here is what your vote would mean. A “Yes” vote would add the specific rights of crime victims to the Constitution, increase the judicial retirement age, and prohibit state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation. A “No” vote would not add specific crime victim rights or increase the judicial retirement age, and state courts would be allowed to continue to defer to administrative agency interpretations.

My head hurts and we’re not even halfway through the proposed amendments.