A progressive guide to Florida's proposed constitutional amendments

As you head to the polls in Florida (which you already may have done; I'm planning to vote today), you'll face the usual list of races for local, state, and national office, and you probably already know about most of them. But in Florida, as you may know, we have a very weird constitutional amendment process, which I frankly think is a joke.

Florida's constitution doesn't operate like the U.S. Constitution. Amendments to the Florida Constitution are not appended to the document, but instead they result in actual changes -- deletions or additions -- to the original document. As such, our state constitution, the fifth, has been amended 109 times since its ratification in 1968. One hundred and nine amendments in forty years, compared to the U.S. constitution's 27 amendments in 220 years. Heckuva job, Florida.

At least it's marginally harder now to amend the Florida Constitution, thanks to ... yep, a constitutional amendment passed in 2006 raising the electoral majority needed to approve an amendment from 50% to 60%. But, still, it's a goofy system, and it leads to all manner of idiocy -- as we're seeing this year with, for example, Amendment 2, the Hate Amendment, which has no business being in the Constitution. But, I digress ...

Commenter sdf (stu) asked the other day if I knew of a good progressive guide to the six amendments on Florida's ballot this year and, coincidentally, I'd been considering writing just such a guide -- although I don't know whether it's going to be good or not. Still, it's a start, and maybe it'll help you as you head to the polls. So here we go:

---

A Progressive Guide to Florida's Proposed Constitutional Amendments, 2008

Links are to PDFs of the full official amendment language as proposed by the Legislature;
the italicized paragraphs are what you will see on your ballot

1. Amendment 1 -- Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.

Analysis: This is a no-brainer. Basically, as Frank Cerabino explains in today's Palm Beach Post, Florida is the last state that preserves constitutional language regarding "aliens ineligible for citizenship," which at the time it was written around a hundred years ago specifically meant the Chinese who, thanks to early 2oth Century xenophobia, were for a time ineligible for citizenship.

The federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits racial restrictions on citizenship and property ownership, so in actual fact there are no "aliens ineligible for citizenship." Amendment 1 seeks merely to bring Florida law into compliance -- finally -- with that 1952 federal law, and with every other state's law as well. A "yes" vote means you want to delete that obsolete language ... so, you know, duh.

Recommended vote: YES on 1

2. Amendment 2 -- Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Analysis: Ugh. Gah. Blecch. Here it is, folks: the right-wing nutjobs' attempt not just to legislate morality, but to put it in the state constitution. Of course, they'll stop at nothing to enshrine their hate in the Constitution, and they're apparently breaking the law in order to get it done (surprise!!) ... but that's outside the scope of this guide.

So, as to the amendment itself: it would proscribe not only the proverbial "gay marriage," which already is illegal in Florida, but it would prevent any kind of civil union -- homosexual or heterosexual -- or other non-marriage legal bond between consenting adults. It would prevent such innocuous things as seniors who have lived together for years from visiting each other in the hospital. It would prevent domestic partners -- yes, even one man and one woman -- from receiving health and other benefits even if their employers offered them -- which also would be illegal under this amendment.

Bottom line (as if you need to hear it from me): this is a heinous, hateful amendment, it's redundant, and it doesn't belong in our Constitution. It's another no-brainer: it needs to FAIL -- big time.

Recommended vote: NO on 2

3. Amendment 3 -- Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property

Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property's value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect.

Analysis: This is a complicated way to say something relatively simple. The amendment would provide property owners with a tax incentive -- or, to be completely accurate, it would prohibit a tax penalty -- for making improvements that enhance the hurricane readiness of their home or that utilize renewable energy sources. If this amendment passes, the Legislature can't consider such improvements as an increase in the home's value for taxation purposes. Again, a no-brainer. (Here's some additional information.)

Recommended vote: YES on 3

4. Amendment 4 -- Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation

Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.

Analysis: This amendment would provide a property tax exemption on all land permanently designated for conservation. It's a good way to encourage conservation and give owners an incentive not to develop land unnecessarily, and it's good for the environment, too. I give it two thumbs up.

Recommended vote: YES on 4

(note: there is no Amendment 5 nor an Amendment 7)

5. Amendment 6 -- Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

Analysis: Another property tax-related amendment, this one would prevent waterfront property from being taxed unfairly because, say, it's ripe for future development. In other words, the value of waterfront property would be based on how it's being used today, not on what its potential for development as waterfront condos or hotels or whatever might be. It's good for small businesses in that it removes the risk of tax "penalties" just because they happen to operate on "desirable" property along the water.

Recommended vote: YES on 6

6. Amendment 8 -- Local Option Community Funding

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.

Analysis: Yesterday at the Obama rally in Miami, some folks were urging a "yes" vote on Amendment 8, handing out flyers that stated, "Amendment 8 will not cost you one penny. It will simply provide a process for community colleges to get local public support." Well, strictly speaking, it's true that the amendment itself won't cost you a penny ... but it would allow counties on an individual to charge you a few pennies or so to support their respective community colleges.

Still, this is a good thing. All levels of education in Florida are suffering from the sluggish economy (not to mention the after-effects of detestable education policy under the Jeb! Bush administration), but perhaps none more so than the community colleges, which form the backbone of higher education in this state as well as a huge boost to employers and businesses throughout Florida. Amendment 8 may result in higher taxes for you in the long run, depending on what each county decides to do, but in this case, that's a good thing no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

Recommended vote: YES on 8

So, to summarize, I recommend:

YES on 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8
NO on 2

If I've misstated anything or you disagree for whatever reason, let me hear it in comments. I hope this helps you when you vote -- after all, despite the example of Sarah Palin and others, an informed citizenry is the best hope for all of society.