Analysis: Nov 8 2022 Florida Constitutional Amendment Questions

There are three constitutional amendments on the Florida ballot for November 8. Here is a breakdown of the three, as well as my opinion on each. 

Amendment 1: 

Amendment 1 is aimed largely at helping lower tax burden for property owners, and not penalizing those who make drainage improvements on their property or elevate all or parts of their homes. If approved, such improvements would not be considered in determining assessed values. This type of improvement is generally not in the structure itself, but around or under it. Including this type of assessment in valuation makes about as much sense as including tree trimming in assessed value. This amendment provides much needed assistance for property owners and encourages these kinds of preventive improvements. 

Amendment 2: 

Amendment 2 is a measure to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), specifically to remove from the Florida Constitution the section requiring and governing the Constitution Revision Commission. There are arguments both for and against the CRC. 

The Constitution Revision Commission meets every 20 years to consider and propose ballot initiatives to amend the state constitution. The governor appoints 15 members, the State Senate president appoints nine members, the speaker of the Florida house appoints nine, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court appoints three, and the attorney general serves on it. 

Abolishing the CRC would eliminate one formal means of putting on the ballot initiatives to change the state constitution, but the other ways to get initiatives on the ballot would remain. 

The CRC was formed in 1968 to prevent "issues du jour" from becoming constitutional amendments. For reasons why this is a problem, see the Florida state constitution prior to 1968, where cultural fads became enshrined in the state Constitution. 

The 37-member CRC panel drew the ire of lawmakers in 2018 after it put issues on the ballot that touched on everything from new ethics standards for public officials to a ban on greyhound racing. Additional controversy centered on it creating “bundled” ballot proposals that tied together seemingly unrelated topics, such as one proposal to ban both offshore oil drilling and indoor vaping. Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican who sponsored this ballot proposal to repeal the commission, criticized the CRC as being unaccountable to anyone. 

Others have suggested reforms to the CRC instead of abolishment. They argue that it provides the necessary time for hot topics to cool off before considering a constitutional amendment. 

Some of the reforms that have been suggested include: 

• Create a simple set of rules and procedures for all CRCs in the future so they do not make up their own each time.
• Impose a single-subject requirement so that the CRC cannot “bundle” different issues into one initiative. 
• Apply Florida’s open meetings laws to the CRC 
• Create a one-year maximum terms for appointees and reduce the total number of appointees 
• Include elected CRC members 

Amendment 3: 

Amendment 3 proposes increasing the homestead exemption for teachers, law officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency-medical technicians, paramedics, child-welfare services professionals and active-duty members of the military and Florida National Guard. Under current law, homeowners can qualify for homestead exemptions on the first $25,000 of the appraised value of property. They also can qualify for $25,000 homestead exemptions on the value between $50,000 and $75,000. Any higher property value is taxable. With the amendment, homeowners in the targeted professions could receive an additional $50,000 exemption, which would apply to the property value between $100,000 and $150,000. 

There are a number of problems with this proposal. 

• While we appreciate those professions, a more appropriate measure of appreciation for work done is increasing compensation and benefits based on job performance, not just being employed in that profession. 
• The tax revenue still has to come from somewhere, and everyone else will be paying more so that a few can pay less. 
• This amendment unironically creates a new favored class of individuals taxed at a lower level and also sets a precedent for using tax code to create more protected classes in the future. 

Instead of creating favored classes, local and state governments need to do the work to lower costs by slashing waste and duplication in budgets, as well as being realistic about what we can and can't afford. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and this amendment seems both unnecessary and unconstitutional.