 |
|
 Voters approve three amendments, question Three other proposed amendments fail to pass Amendments on the 2010 ballot: Failed to pass Nov. 2 For more than 20 years, Florida's taxpayers have been subsidizing the campaigns of aspirants to statewide office, a practice enshrined in the state Constitution in 1998. In 2006, the cost was $11.1 million. Charlie Crist, who was elected governor that year, received $3.3 million. Those numbers were higher than in previous years because the Legislature had substantially increased the spending limits. This year, however, voters will decide whether to kill the program. "Why would we be spending tens of millions of taxpayer money when obviously anyone running  statewide is going to be able to get the resources," said Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Melbourne, a sponsor of Amendment 1.Republicans in the Legislature supported Amendment 1, while many Democrats voted against it. "There has not been an outcry to repeal this," said Sen. Nan Rich, D-Sunrise. "The people voted for this. It's wrong to send it back." 2. Tax break for deployed military personnel Passed by voters Nov. 2 This proposed amendment has the blessings of every member of the state House and Senate. It passed unanimously. If voters approve the amendment, the Legislature will be required to provide a homestead property tax reduction to every Floridian serving in the military outside the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. The amount of the tax break will be determined by the number of days a member serves overseas. There is no organized opposition to this amendment. Failed to pass Nov. 2 This amendment, commonly referred to as Hometown Democracy, the name of the group advocating the change, would require voter approval of development proposals that conflict with local growth management plans. Its supporters say local governments are entirely too willing to change those plans to accommodate developers and builders. They want to transfer that power to the people. The amendment's detractors, many of whom are developers, real estate agents or builders, say it would result in giant, complex ballots that would overwhelm and confuse voters. They say the measure would badly damage the Florida economy. 5 & 6. Changes in redistricting process Both passed by voters Nov. 2 Redistricting is the act of re-dividing the state into new election districts. By law, it happens every 10 years. And each time lawmakers begin the process, which involves using sophisticated computing, it draws intense scrutiny from critics who accuse incumbents of choosing which voters to put in their districts to ensure re-election. A new effort is under way in Florida to change that. FairDistrictsFlorida.org, a nonpartisan state committee, is working to establish constitutionally mandated fairness standards for the way Florida draws legislative and congressional district lines. According to FairDistrictsFlorida.org, these amendments would establish fairness standards for use in creating legislative and congressional district boundaries. While protecting minority voting rights, the standards would prohibit drawing district lines to favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party. Districts would have to be compact and utilize existing political and geographical boundaries. In other words, natural competitiveness and fairness would be required. 8. Relaxation of class-size requirements Failed to pass Nov. 2 A proposed constitutional amendment passed April 8 by the Florida Legislature would ease the state Constitution’s existing class size rules. Passed by voters in 2002, the Class Size Amendment sets a maximum number of students allowed in classrooms across the state. The new proposal would raise the maximum allowable number of students per class by changing the calculation from per-class maximums to school-wide averages. The change would allow a school to be over the average in one class provided that excess is balanced by another class at that school with fewer students than the allowable average. Backers say the change would save millions of dollars and give individual schools a measure of flexibility not present in the current law. Opponents say voters clearly wanted to cap class sizes at the levels they passed into law in 2002, and that students and teachers benefit from smaller class sizes. Passed by voters Nov. 2 Unlike Florida lawmakers, who must balance state revenues with spending every year, Congress has the ability to spend more than it collects. The federal government’s willingness to use money it doesn’t have has long been a bone of contention among political theorists. The debate has intensified in recent years as the federal government, despite shrinking revenues brought on by recession and tax cuts, has used deficit spending to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bank bailout and an economic stimulus program to boost the country out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The national debt now threatens to exceed the Gross Domestic Product for the first time since World War II. Fiscal conservatives are calling on Congress to close the purse. The Florida Legislature has placed on the Nov. 2 ballot a nonbinding resolution that asks whether voters support a constitutional requirement that the federal government balance its budget. The nonbinding resolution reads: "In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the federal government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?" Measures removed from ballot: Amendments 3 (property tax limit for non-homestead property; added exemption for new homestead owners), 7 (redistricting changes that are less restrictive than Amendments 5 & 6), and 9 (nullification of federal health-care law) were removed from the November 2010 ballot after legal challenges. (To see a related Aug. 31 Supreme Court rulings, click here.) | AMENDMENTS UPDATE Voters decided the fate of six proposed constitutional amendments Nov. 2. But that’s hardly the end of the story. In the upcoming legislative session, expect Florida lawmakers to revisit the class-size issue (Amendment 8), and to renew efforts to loosen growth controls (Amendment 4). They’ll also interpret new rules voters approved for redrawing legislative and congressional districts (amendments 5&6). See what to expect here. PROPOSAL: Repeal the provision in the state Constitution requiring public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits. ELECTORAL FATE: Measure approved by 52 percent of voters but failed to reach the 60 percent threshold needed to go into effect. WHAT NOW: While the constitutional requirement for a public campaign finance program remains, lawmakers can alter the amount of money awarded if they so choose. However, legislative leaders have said there are no immediate plans to make changes to the current financing formula. Even if they chose to alter the formula, they would be constrained by state law. The state Constitution says at a minimum the state must provide a system of public campaign finance equal what was on the books in 1998 (when the public approved a constitutional amendment requiring a public financing system), which allowed for matching funds up to $250 per individual contribution up to a maximum of $5 million for the governor’s race and $2 million for cabinet posts.
PROPOSAL: Allow voters to approve proposals that change local growth-management plans. Comprehensive plans, as they are known, are blueprints that cities and counties use to lay out a vision of what their communities will look like. ELECTORAL FATE: Voters crushed Amendment 4 following a blitz of opposition from local government officials and business groups led by the Florida Chamber of Commerce. The amendment was rejected by 67 percent of voters. WHAT NOW: With the defeat of this proposed initiative, lawmakers are now expected to revisit growth management issues during the 2011 legislative session this spring. Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) said he will file measures similar to those passed in 2009 that relax regulations on the construction of schools and roads to accompany growth. The 2009 law has been challenged in court, with a circuit judge throwing out the law after determining it was an unfunded mandate that burdened local governments. With two-thirds majorities in both chambers, Republicans can approve measures that require local governments to foot the bill because the constitutional restriction on unfunded mandates does not apply to legislation that passes by a two-thirds vote.
THE PROPOSALS: Set new guidelines for drawing state legislative and federal congressional political district boundaries. They call for districts to be compact and not drawn to favor a particular candidate or party, a perennial complaint of the current system in which districts can be far-flung. Amendment 5 addresses state House and Senate seats while Amendment 6 deals with Congressional districts. ELECTORAL FATE: Voters approved both measures by the 60 percent margin needed to pass. Both proposals passed with more than 62 percent of the vote. WHAT NOW: Lawmakers will begin redrawing political boundaries — a once-a-decade exercise — to take into account population growth and voter relocation in accordance with the new constitutional mandates. Historically, newly crafted plans have been challenged in court and there is no reason to believe that this round will be any different. Backers of the amendments say judges will at least have a specific set of requirements from which to determine the fairness of the new boundaries. The House and Senate will set up separate committees to deal with state House, state Senate, and U.S. Congressional district boundaries. In theory, they will have newly drawn districts in time for the 2012 elections, but history has shown that sometimes those plans remain in litigation beyond the next election cycle. As of Dec. 14, the House had yet to name committee members to the panel. The Senate group is led by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville.
THE PROPOSAL: Relax the requirement for class size restrictions approved by voters in 2002 by allowing school districts, within certain parameters, to calculate class size caps on a school-wide basis and not on individual classrooms. ELECTORAL FATE: The measure failed. Though it was approved by 54.5 percent of voters, the measure failed to reach the 60 percent threshold need to become part of the constitution. WHAT NEXT: Expect this issue to be debated again in the spring 2011 legislative session. While the sponsor of the 2010 amendment to relax the hard caps, Sen. Don Gaetz (R-Niceville), said he won’t sponsor any class-size related legislation, others are expected to do so. Given the fact that a majority of voters approved of changes, lawmakers will have some political cover if they attempt to make statutory changes. One proposal, floated unsuccessfully in 2008 by Rep. Joe Pickens (R-Palatka), would require school districts to meet class size caps at the beginning of the school year, but allow them to add a certain number of students to each class to accommodate transfers and increased enrollment. The 2008 measure passed the House but not the Senate. Backers of the current caps say any statutory changes will likely be challenged in court.
|
Collins Center for Public Policy 2011© | Legal/Privacy |
