Latest Headlines
- County To Continue Discussions On Latest Offer For OLF-8 Property
- Sunny Skies, Middle 70s For Tuesday
- Locals Make New $22.5 Million Offer For OLF-8 Property
- Century Mayor Reports Entire Playground Stolen; ECSO Says It Was Scrapped For $196
- Vehicle Rolls On Kingsfield Road After Hitting Bridge
- Beulah Middle FFA Teams Places 7th In Florida In Meat Identification
- Escambia Woman, 20, Gets 15 Years In Prison for 2022 Double Fatal Crash
- Florida Gas Prices Rise 13 Cents; Set New 2024 High
- Blue Angels Thrill, Rocket City Blasts Past Wahoos In Series Finale
- Escambia Considers Widening 2.16 Miles Of Dangerously Narrow Highway 164; Barry Promises More
Lawmakers Wants To Make It Harder To Pass Constitutional Amendments
November 29, 2018
After an election in which voters approved 11 constitutional amendments, a Republican House member Wednesday filed a proposal aimed at making it harder to pass future ballot measures.
The proposal, filed by Rep. Rick Roth, R-Loxahatchee, would require support from two-thirds of voters for passage of constitutional amendments. That would be up from the current 60 percent threshold.
Roth’s proposal is filed for consideration during the 2019 legislative session, which starts in March. It is a proposed constitutional amendment because the 60 percent threshold was put into the Florida Constitution in 2006. If approved by lawmakers, Roth’s proposal would go on the 2020 ballot.
Voters this year approved 11 of 12 proposed constitutional amendments. Seven of the measures were placed on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, three were placed on the ballot by the Legislature, and two went on the ballot after petition drives. The only proposal that failed would have increased the homestead property-tax exemption.
by The News Service of Florida
Comments
10 Responses to “Lawmakers Wants To Make It Harder To Pass Constitutional Amendments”
I agree that there should only be single subject amendments but I also believe in the will of the people. In November the people passed Amendment 4 allowing most felons to vote when their sentence is over. The Senate has just filed a bill that defines when a sentence is up…stating that it is up when all restitution is paid even if it is in a civil lien. Three problems here 1- a civil lien is civil and not criminal so it shouldn’t matter, 2-people who have done their time and have $100,000-$500,000 court fees for ridiculous trafficking charges won’t be allowed to vote ever because they can never pay that back and 3- this was not the intent of the people when they voted to alleviate the disenfranchisement of this population. Most importantly it’s the people that put these legislators in power and it’s time that they exercised their own discretion.
A direct and correlated “apple to apple” method of Florida amendment approval, if the US Constitutional amendment process were used, would have two thirds of both chambers of the Florida Legislature approve a measure. Then, 51 of the 67 boards of county commissioners would need to approve for adoption. That means citizens would have no direct means of approval or disapproval.
That brings us to the current approval process of 60% of the voters (or, should I say 60% of those who vote on a given Election Day). This process means that 40% plus one vote can stop the passage that 60% minus one vote desires in the state. The proposal by Representative Roth would change this to 1/3rd +1 to 2/3rds -1 vote would sink an amendment.
Rep. Roth’s bill sounds well and good when the voter who is in the minority, and all of their family and friends (or localized region, or religion, or socioeconomic, or dare I say race) is sour grapes on the outcome. But when the majority really desires a change to the Florida Constitution are stopped by 1/3rd +1 of the participating voters, everyone will be looking for a way to amend Rep. Roth’s proposal… and a way to end minority gridlock… when changes are needed.
To amend the United States Constitution you need:
(1) amendment is proposed by 2/3rds majority of both houses. that is, 67 percent of the House AND the Senate.
(2) then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it.
we’re not talking about laws here – we’re talking about the State Constitution.
currently the florida state constitution has 39 amendments. source here:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3
there are 27 amendments for 330 million Americans since 1789.
there are 39 amendments for 22 million Floridians since 1968.
changes to the constitution should be hard to make. that way it stays put for a long time – because getting it repealed will be nearly impossible. limits the special interests, and ensures a LOT of people have to be involved – you know, the entire point of a democracy.
I agree with the earlier posting requiring only 1 issue per voting block. Even if issues are related, each should be voted on separately. Also, any amendment that proposes fees or tax increases/decreases should realistically estimate the financial impact of those affected and be written in plain English, so that we non-lawyers can understand the issues being proposed.
Amazing how we the people dont matter/
Include wording that it doesn’t go into effect unless it has the approval percentage it will require.
Why don’t they add where you cannot not have an admendment that have two or three items that have nothing in common. Just like last the last ballot. Didn’t one have public vaping and offshore drilling tied together.
How about only putting amendments up for a vote if they’re Citizens’ Petitions that have received the requisite number of signatures to be put on the ballot, and
remove the lobbyist-controlled Commission’s and the same lobbyist tools in the Legislature’s ability to do that at all. That’s preferable to ignoring the will of a 60% majority of the state’s voters.
Just go ahead and make it a 75% threshold like it is for approval of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There have been only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 229 years, and 10 of those came at the same time as the Bill of Rights! If it is a good and necessary amendment it will pass.
A better idea might be to end the influence of money in politics and to actually educate voters about the amendments they are voting on.
People have short attention spans and they are influenced by advertising sound bites that can be misleading toward facts about amendments and politicians.
We don’t need to make participation in our democracy more difficult we just need a better way for voters to be educated on their voting choices.