Florida’s ballot this year is full of constitutional amendments that would drastically change our state. Below are a few details about the amendments that we has taken a position on. There are additional amendments on the ballot, but these are the ones that will have the greatest impact on working families.
Amendment 1 (Opposed): If passed, this statewide amendment would prevent the implementation of key provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Amendment guts much of the cost saving provisions of the ACA including those designed to increase the availability of employer sponsored health insurance and those requiring individuals to purchase health insurance in certain circumstances, allowing them to continue to rely on tax payer funded health care through the Emergency Rooms. If this amendment passes, Florida will lose vital tools to help lower your health care costs. Additionally, the conservative Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that these provisions are legitimate under the U.S. Constitution. This means that if this language is added to our constitution, it will set up yet another expensive legal standoff, paid for with your tax dollars, between the State of Florida and the Federal Government. A standoff most legal experts agree we will lose.
Amendment 3 (Opposed): If passed, this amendment would place a state revenue cap in the Constitution. If approved by the voters, this tax cap would bar the Florida Legislature from collecting additional revenues from the amount collected the prior year plus an adjustment for inflation and population growth. Essentially this amendment would block any efforts to increase funding for our schools, health care programs or infrastructure improvements and make it impossible to close any of the hundreds of special interest tax exemptions and loopholes that benefit big business. This arbitrary tax cap failed miserably in Colorado, the only state to pass such a cap. Following the Colorado failure, 30 states have rejected these caps and 16 have defeated similar measures at the ballot box.
Amendment 4 (Opposed): If passed, this amendment would place several arbitrary tax caps on county governments. It will extend “Save Our Homes” like protections to commercial property and provide additional exemptions for first-time homeowners. These changes and others in the amendment will drain local governments of much needed revenue. The first-time homesteader provision will reduce non-school property tax revenues by $94.5 million by fiscal year (FY) 2013-14. The reoccurring loss would increase to $412.0 million in FY 2016-17. Other provisions will result in a reduction of school property tax revenue of $5.0 million in FY 2013-14, with a recurring impact of -$17.0 million. The non-school property tax reduction is estimated at $6.0 million in FY 2013-14, with a recurring impact of -$18.0 million.
Amendment 5 (Opposed): The Florida Legislature, angry that they did not get their way on every recent Supreme Court ruling, held their breath until they turned blue. When that did not work, they crafted Amendment 5, which would grant the magnanimous, never-political Florida Senate with confirmation powers over justices of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, this drive-by shooting, disguised as an amendment, would allow the Legislature the power to repeal, yes repeal, any Supreme Court decision with a simple majority of 50 percent plus one.
Amendment 8 (Opposed): If passed, Amendment 8 would grant the state the ability to give our tax dollars to any group claiming to be a religious organization. Any religious group or sect would be able to use our tax dollars to fund their own religious schools. With no oversight to safeguard your tax dollars our state government would be “giving away” – the door would be open to massive fraud and abuse.
Amendment 9 (Support): Amendment 9 would allow counties and municipalities to offer a total or partial property tax exemption to the spouses of military veterans or first responders, who died in the line of duty.
Amendment 10 (Opposed): Amendment 10 prevents counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments from taxing “tangible personal property” with a total assessed value more than $25,000 but less than $50,000. This amendment would create an uneven playing field for businesses depending on where they are located. Carving out special tax exemptions for small groups does not serve the economic interests of the state.