Here's a closer look at Florida's six proposed constitutional amendments

Floridians will have their say Tuesday on six major amendments, from partisan school board elections to recreational marijuana and abortion rights. Each amendment requires a 60% supermajority to pass, and each has sparked intense nationwide campaigns.

The changes allow citizens to have their say on some of the most contentious issues this election cycle. The complicated language used in each measure can get bogged down in government jargon. Nevertheless, any amendment can be reduced to a yes or no vote.

Amendment 1: Partisan election of district school board members

Amendment 1 requires county school board members to be elected in nonpartisan school board elections, meaning those running for office must identify with a political party rather than vote in nonpartisan elections.

Only voters registered with a political party can vote for candidates in their party's primary election. Voters who do not have a party affiliation cannot participate in a partisan primary election. If enacted, this change will take effect in the November 2026 election cycle.

A no vote means the school board election will remain nonpartisan, as elections currently are.

“Educating our children should not be a partisan issue,” said Janice Garry, president of the League of Women Voters of Alachua County. The statewide League of Women Voters has taken a position against Amendment 1.

Supporters of the amendment say partisan voting allows voters to make a more informed decision along party lines, while those who oppose it say political parties could increase division in local elections.

Amendment 2: Right to fish and hunt

Amendment 2 permanently enshrines the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution. A second provision of the amendment would declare that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of responsible management and control of fish and wildlife. Hunting and fishing are currently protected by Florida Statute 379.104. This year, more than 1.7 million Floridians have paid fishing licenses and 219,074 have paid hunting licenses, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A yes vote on this amendment supports establishing a state constitutional right to fish and hunt. A second provision in the proposed amendment would make hunting and fishing the preferred means “for the responsible management and control of fish and wildlife.” Proponents argue that the change is necessary to curb potential threats to fishing and hunting in the state; However, there have been no recent credible threats to any of the activities in the state.

A no means that hunting and fishing rights remain as they currently exist. If the amendment does not reach the required 60% supermajority, hunting and fishing will continue to be protected by Florida state law.

The Florida Wildlife Federation recommends its voters vote no on Amendment 2. Sarah Gledhill, the organization's president and CEO, said the state legislature's current laws are enough to protect hunting and fishing in the state, and further legislation could already trouble an entrenched pastime by muddying the legal waters.

“The measure is worded too vaguely,” said Gledhill. “It’s unnecessary to go back to the fact that it’s already a state law.”

Supporters of the change point to an unsuccessful effort in late 2022 to ban hunting, fishing and ranching in Oregon. A constitutional amendment would make it more difficult for lawmakers to ban hunting or fishing in the future.

Amendment 3: Personal marijuana use by adults

The first of two hotly contested legislative changes in the state focuses on recreational marijuana use. Amendment 3 would change Florida's current medical marijuana laws to allow recreational use for adults over the age of 21 without requiring a doctor's note.

A yes vote legalizes the recreational use of marijuana in Florida by adults 21 and older and authorizes existing medical marijuana treatment centers to purchase, sell and distribute marijuana products and accessories.

A no vote favors maintaining Florida's marijuana laws and continuing to restrict marijuana use only to those with a doctor's note.

Civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida have taken public stances on the two most notable changes, citing positive benefits to the state's economy and reduced spending on the resources needed to criminalize marijuana use.

Amendment 4: Amendment to limit government intervention in abortion

Amendment 4 is the other controversial measure this election cycle. It calls on Florida residents to take a stand on the state's controversial abortion laws. Many civil rights organizations have taken a public stand supporting the amendment to exclude the government from the abortion discussion.

A yes vote on Amendment 4 supports limiting government intervention in the issue of abortion. If approved, this change would expand access to abortion beyond the first six weeks of pregnancy until it is viable. Florida state law defines viability as the stage of development at which the fetus can survive outside the uterus, which is approximately 24 weeks.

A No vote would keep Florida's abortion laws in their current form, banning abortions outside the first six weeks of a pregnancy.

Amendment 4 has seen the most polarization of all the amendments put to the vote. Supporters include the ACLU of Florida, state Democrats and Planned Parenthood. Republicans and Gov. Ron DeSantis have been vocal opponents of Amendment 4.

Amendment 5: Annual adjustments to the value of certain homestead exemptions

Amendment 5 is perhaps the most complicated issue of the series as it deals with proposed changes to property tax exemptions.

The homestead exemption is currently set at $25,000. This amendment proposes that this value increase based on inflation to provide homeowners with an exemption that keeps pace with rising costs. The adjustment does not affect the portion of property taxes that go to schools.

A yes vote supports increasing the homestead tax exemption based on inflation. For those who benefit from the tax exemption, this change would reduce the amount homeowners pay in taxes each year. It would also reduce the tax revenue available to local governments.

If the vote is no, the exception would remain in its current form.

The Florida House of Representatives conducted a legislative analysis of possible changes to the exemption. According to the Revenue Estimating Conference, Amendment 5, if passed, would reduce non-school property taxes by $22.8 million in the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The conference also estimated that the same taxes would decrease by $111.8 million for the 2028-2029 fiscal year.

Amendment 6: Repeal the requirement for public campaign financing

The final change on the ballot concerns the proposed repeal of a constitutional provision that allows candidates to use public funds for their campaigns. The current change has helped fund recent campaigns for statewide positions such as governor and attorney general.

A yes vote supports changing public campaign finance requirements. This means that candidates running for statewide office in Florida would not receive public funding to support their campaigns.

A “no” vote supports maintaining the campaign finance requirement without any changes. This means candidates would continue to receive public funding to run for office if they agree to campaign spending limits.

This issue has been highly partisan since its introduction into the state legislature. Republicans have supported the change because they push to limit government spending, while Democrats have opposed the change because the old change helps level the playing field for candidates with limited financial support.

Copyright 2024 WUFT 89.1