Our Views on Florida Amendments

The Long and Short of It from Peter Swanson, Josh Allen and Susan Armstrong. Spoiler Alert: We Don't Agree

The name of this outlet is Clay News & Views. Mostly we write news stories. Sometimes the news can be a little viewsy too. Today’s offering is on the opinion side. It’s all about the views…except for Susie, whose views today are kind of newsy.

Be sure to vote on Tuesday, if you haven’t already.

Amendment 1

Partisan School Board Elections

Peter Swanson: No. Because why? Because partisanship is working out so well in all our other civic endeavors? It’s a shame we can’t mandate pragmatism and common sense instead.

Josh Allen: No. School Board elections are already partisan. Just look at the shenanigans happening here with the District Two contest. Both of the remaining candidates have had their reputations unjustly smeared because they were not entirely Republican enough for the local party leadership, who desperately wanted Matt Mitchell to win.

Ultimately, I don't support this amendment because it is not worthy of being enshrined in the state constitution.

Susan Armstrong: Yes. The School Board is presently elected in a “non-partisan” (NP) election. NP means candidates have no political party by their names on the ballot. They are also not allowed to talk about their opponents’ political party or former party, and cannot use it in campaign material.

In truth, about 20 minutes after individuals register to run for office, some smarty pants already knows their political party history, how many times they’ve been married, and what they had for breakfast.

If approved by a “yes,” this amendment would require school board candidates’ political parties be listed beside their names on the ballot. Candidates will also be able to out their opponents’ past political history in voice and campaign fliers.

A “no” retains the school board as “non-partisan.”

There are two parties that get elected in Clay County. 1) Republicans 2) those who have been another party, but register as Republican because nobody gets elected in Clay County unless you’re a Republican.

Interestingly, every candidate in the non-partisan primary school board race in August, except Matthew Mitchell, was a registered Democrat prior to the election but changed to a Republican. The two folks that are in the non-partisan run-off for school board next week are people who ran off from the Democrat party to get elected and registered as Republicans.

What’s that saying? “If politics is all about parties, why does it look like nobody’s having fun?” If you’ve seen or heard tell of any school board meeting, you know the board and the parents are not having fun, and a yes or no will not change that.

---

Amendment 2

Right To Fish And Hunt

Peter Swanson: No. The only threat to fishing and hunting in Florida is the long list of incredibly byzantine regulations that govern these pastimes. Otherwise, this is obviously a solution in search of a problem. This ballot measure should be humanely euthanized, which means...I don’t know...tickling it to death?

Josh Allen: No. People have been hunting and fishing in Florida for thousands of years, so there is no need to include this in the state constitution.

Susan Armstrong: Yes. We already have the right to hunt and fish in Florida. Nothing will change. All rules, regulations and requirements for hunting and fishing will remain the same.

Supporters say a “yes” vote is a warning to some animal rights organizations to keep their mitts off rights to hunt and fish and stop “potential bans or extreme restrictions” in the future.

Opponents say a “no” will agree that "traditional methods” of “managing and controlling fish and wildlife” can be “inhumane to animals.”

Sometimes the biggest “tell” is which organizations support an amendment and which oppose it. Here’s a few tellers.

Supporters:

• American Sportfishing Association

• Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

• Bonefish & Tarpon Trust

• Coastal Conservation Association

• Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation

• Delta Waterfowl

• Everglades Coordinating Council

• Florida Guides Association

• Florida Sportsman’s Conservation Association

• Future Hunting in Florida

• National Deer Association

Opponents:

• American Ecosystems, Inc.

• Animal Wellness Action

• Center for a Humane Economy

• Florida Bar Animal Law Section

• Humane Wildlife Consulting of South Florida

• League of Humane Voters of Florida

• Paws and Recreation

• Sarasota Vegan Society

• Sierra Club

• Speak Up for Wildlife, Inc.

• World Animal Protection

Choose your allies.

---

Amendment 3

Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Peter Swanson: Yes. Florida is already home to one of the biggest concentrations of happy stoners in the USA. Legalizing weed will only legitimize a lifestyle enjoyed by rednecks and carpetbaggers alike. But no...Babies are going to die! The whole state is going to smell like Janis Joplin’s hair at 2 in the morning!

Hysterical, hyperbolic ads featuring hyperventilating paid spokesfolks won’t change the fact that none of our other evening cocktail choices--not our beloved craft beers nor our craftier tequilas--actually have the potential health benefits of marijuana. As it now stands, access to the medicinal variety is controlled by a scammy system of rubber-stamped-for-cash scripts.

Most of all, Gov. DeSantis, this can’t be the effing “Free State of Florida,” if we’re not as free as the citizens in 22 other states to make up our own minds. C’mon, Ron, you can always spray some patchouli to mask the odor.

Josh Allen: No. If your goal is to enable two or three mega-corporations to sell weed at high prices and generate tax money for the government, vote yes.

If you want marijuana legalized, this amendment doesn't accomplish that in any practical way. Also, this is not an issue that is important enough to be included in the state constitution.

Susan Armstrong: No. “This amendment would allow adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products …for non-medical personal consumption.”

Amendment 3 advocates want us to stop saying marijuana and use the term “cannabis.” It makes us look more chill and less like druggies.

Florida already has a liberal medical marijuana law. For patients with severe medical issues, it has been a godsend. For some, it’s an easy peasy way to get high legally. Over 880,000 Floridians have prescriptions for medical marijuana.

However, Amendment 3 contains some terrifying allowances about which the average Floridian has no idea. Those who grow and sell the drug have spent millions to keep that knowledge from citizens because they stand to make billions if no. 3 passes.

All medical research says marijuana is a gateway drug. Research also shows that its use leads to heart disease, cardiovascular death, stroke, depression, suicide, loss of ambition and a whole host of other diseases that are starting to appear, especially in young users.

Supporters say marijuana shops produce safe marijuana, which would keep dangerous marijuana off the streets. While one sheriff from a few counties over is hawking for passage of no. 3 on TV commercials, most law enforcement official are against it. They say once the wrappers are off the products, nobody knows where it came from. Officials say a lot of it will be coming from the drug dealers that have swarmed into the US and will contain fentanyl to kill a large population of Floridians.

Advocates use Donald Trump to gain support for Amendment 3. They say he supports the proposal. He does not. He supports significantly reducing legal penalties for individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana without the intent to sell. Most in law enforcement agree.

Supporters say the government will allegedly be able to regulate possession limits for personal use, but history has shown our government cannot regulate how much Budweiser a person can drink, much less regulate something controlled by powerful monied groups who stand to get rich. State officials say the amendment is written in a way that prevents the legislature from restricting public use of recreational marijuana. The legislature is moving to relegate cigarette smokers to lonely dark caves, yet the passage of no. 3 could put Florida adults and their children in a purple haze in restaurants, public transportation and recreational venues.

Every state that has passed this amendment for any duration, has regretted it and warned against it. State representatives say research shows only growers, sellers and drug dealers benefit. They say their state initially received an increase in tax money, but the tax money, and more, had to be spent on emergency room, medical and mental health care. Law enforcement, fire and EMS personnel had to be increased to handle a huge surge in car accidents, behaviors that lead to crimes and health issues related to marijuana usage.

Since Florida is the third largest state and number one for tourism, experts say the state could become the number one marijuana market in the entire world, not just for growers and sellers, but for drug dealers.

---

Amendment 4

Right to Abortion Initiative

Peter Swanson: Yes. A solid majority of smart women across the United States—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—believe limitations on abortion like Florida’s are just plain wrong. Who am I to disagree? Only an idiot or a male Florida state legislator would disagree (but I repeat myself).

Josh Allen: No. Abortion takes a human life and should not be allowed at all. More than 63 million Americans have been murdered in the womb since Roe vs Wade. It is long past time for this horrific practice to end.

Susan Armstrong: No. Like the Affordable Care Act, proponents want us to pass this amendment before we know what’s in it. As was the case with the passage of the marijuana proposal, supporters have spent endless funds to hide the language contained in this proposal. Even proponents of abortion should be troubled.

The language that is contained is like a script in a horror movie. Doctors do not have to perform an abortion. A “healthcare worker” can decide if the mother’s life is in danger for any reason, even “morning sickness” and can end the life of a fully matured baby that is healthy and could live outside the womb. The amendment does not define who a healthcare worker is or the requirements needed to be one or make decisions.

Supporters say “notification” of parents or custodians of a minor is required before an abortion is performed. This does not equal “parental consent.” There is no mention of when notification has to be provided. An email or text can be sent seconds before an abortion on a minor.

“Tattoos and Tylenol require parental consent for minors, but under Amendment 4, surgical abortions and abortion pills do not.” say opponents.

---

Amendment 5

Income Tax Exemption

Peter Swanson: Yes. At the moment, two crises are bedeviling the people of Florida--the cost of housing and the cost of insurance. Amendment 5 ties the amount of a homeowners tax exemption to inflation, a baby step toward more affordable home ownership. The real question is why hadn’t the state legislature done this already, instead of indulging the governor’s passion for culture-war issues such as his crusade against Disney.

Josh Allen: No. Again, not a constitutional issue. I oppose this because a) the state legislature could enact this if it is really needed, and b) perpetual property taxes are equivalent to slavery to the government and should be outlawed altogether.

Susan Armstrong: Yes. The description of this amendment is clear as mud.

There’s lots of confusing conversation, but the bottom line is if no. 5 is passed and inflation goes up by a small percentage, the amount we pay in property taxes will go down a tiny bit. The money we pay in school taxes will not be subject to a reduction. Estimates of savings go from about $30 to $50 dollars a year. It’s not a lot, but we will take it since it would pay for a family night out at Taco Bell.

Opponents say this is a bad idea because the money would reduce revenues to pay for fire and police in the counties and it would have to be made up somewhere else, like an increase in other taxes. This means what the local government giveth, it then taketh away. If you live in Orange Park or Green Cove Springs, the city council would probably install more red-light cameras.

Supporters of No. 5 say opponents are full of hogwash. They say Amendment 5 would not reduce local government revenues. Advocates say, local governments always count their chickens before they’re hatched and “adjust” the money they want each year by upping taxes. The lost in revenue is being calculated by using the dollar amount government wants to get, not what they have been getting. Besides defenders of no. 5 say that local governments have grown too fat and need to go on a diet to reduce taxes.

---

Amendment 6

Campaign Financing

Peter Swanson: No. Listen up, all you folks whining about growth. The only way this problem gets solved is if slow-growth candidates are elected. These are not going to be the kind of candidates that the backroom Republican Party establishment is going to bless when it comes time to pass the money out. It’s a longshot, I know, but at least keeping the status quo could provide some public funding should a growth-control candidate for governor or the cabinet miraculously arise from Florida’s political firmament.

Josh Allen: Yes! How did this even happen in the first place? Tax dollars given to politicians to run for office? It's ridiculous. Vote yes to end this terrible practice.

Susan Armstrong: Yes. Florida citizens have been paying from $4 to $13 million in taxes each election cyle to help pay for political campaigns.

Republicans who proposed the repeal say we should be using that money for education, healthcare, water projects, beach restoration, paying down debts and a passel of other things.

The Democrats candidates say they don’t have as much money as the Republicans, so the citizens should pony up for them.

Taxpayers have been paying for political campaigns since before some of us were born. In many cases, we’ve been paying to support candidates for which we would never vote.