Florida Amendments
Reading an amendment proposal on your ballot can be confusing. We've simplified the jargon and provided pertinent information from what voting yes or no means and
who is for and against each amendment.
​
Each proposal needs at least 60% of votes to be locked into the Florida Constitution
No. 1 Constitutional Amendment
Article IX, Section 4 and Article XII
Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
Currently, school board candidates run as nonpartisan, meaning that they don't have to declare a party affiliation like Republican or Democrat. Should this amendment pass, the election becomes partisan and candidates would have to declare a party affiliation while running, leading to primary party elections prior to the general election.
Ballot Initiation: Florida State Legislature
Sponsor: Republican State Representative from District 76, Spencer Roach
Effective Date: on or after 2026 November general election
Support
Opposition
Voters may cast a more informed vote if they better understand a candidate's interests and intentions by knowing their party affiliation.
​
Supporters: majority Republicans
Introducing partisanship could lead to further division within communities. Many believe that such division, focusing more on party interests, could overshadow what is best for students.
​
Opponents: majority democrats, Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board, The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board
No. 2 Constitutional Amendment
Article I, Section 28
Right to Fish and Hunt
These activities are already legal in Florida, however, adding the right to fish and hunt within the constitution would make it more difficult for future lawmakers to pass legislation that could restrict or ban such activities. Hunting and fishing would be the preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. This amendment would not limit the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
​
The Right to Hunt and Fish statute was added into Florida Law in 2002.
Ballot Initiation: Florida State Legislation
Co-Sponsor: Palm Beach County Republican State Representative, Rick Roth and St. Petersburg Republican State Senator, Jeff Brandes
Effective Date: -
Support
Opposition
There was a push by "extremists" to ban and criminalize hunting, fishing and farming in over a dozen states last year. Supporters of this amendment believe The Right to Hunt and Fish Florida Law does not fully protect hunting and fishing.
​
23 other states have recently passed a constitutional Right to Fish and Hunt amendment.
​
Hunting and fishing have been practiced in Florida for a long period of time. This longstanding lifestyle has controlled wildlife populations and related licensing fees have helped fund state conservation programs.
Florida is the "Fishing Capital of the World" attracting tourists throughout the world bringing in $13.8 billion to our economy annually. ​​
​
Supporters: "Yes on 2", Wilton Simpson (Florida's agricultural commissioner), American Sportfishing Association, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Chairman Rodney Barreto, Charter Fishermans Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Everglades Coordinating Council, Florida Guides Association, Marine Industries Association of Florida, Inc., Safari Club International, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
The vague wording of this amendment could be interpreted to reintroduce hunting practices that have since been banned due to their cruelty or effects damaging our fragile environment.
This amendment is unnecessary as fishing and hunting rights are already greatly protected under current laws.
Could enable hunters to trespass onto private property in pursuit of a wild animal.
Could enable the use of Gill Nets, previously prohibited and affect fish stocks.
​
Others correlate this amendment to the legalization of killing black bears.
​
Opponents: "NoTo2", American Ecosystems, Inc., Animal Law Section - The Florida Bar, Animal Wellness Action, Bear Defenders, Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, Florida Native Plant Society, Friends of the Everglades, Humane Society of the United States, World Animal Protection
Newspaper Opponents: Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, Tampa Bay Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post
No. 3 Constitutional Amendment
Article X, Section 29
Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
Floridians over the age of 21 can legally purchase marijuana for recreational use. Marijuana can only currently be purchased for medicinal purposes with a doctor's prescription and those who possess marijuana without a medical card can face jail time. Private companies will be allowed to get licenses to grow and sell marijuana.
Ballot Initiation: Citizen-Initiated
Effective Date: -
Support
Opposition
Legalizing marijuana for recreational use is a form of freedom and will allow law enforcement to focus their efforts on other, more serious, crimes. This also reduces government spending.
Limiting the reach of federal government allowing states to make own decision on such matters. 24 other states have legalized marijuana.
​
Cannabis legalization could generate $195 million annually for state and local tax revenues leading to economic benefit and job creation.
​
Regulation on cannabis ensures product quality and safety and reduction of organized crime.
​
Increases reach of medical benefits to other individuals.
​
Supporters:
Widespread commercialization of marijuana in Florida. Backed by mega corporations who have invested over $75 million to pass this amendment. This would establish a monopoly, banning homegrown cannabis and special licenses to corporations.
​
As part of the state's constitution, now allowing the right to possess high amounts of cannabis, this amendment could limit the state's ability to regulate the industry effectively. An individual would be allow to possess up to 3 oz of marijuana (about 85 grams).
​
Increased intoxication and impaired driving.
​
The amendment would specifically ban "smoking medical marijuana in any public place" and would not specifically extend this ban to all marijuana, including recreational marijuana.
​​
Opponents:
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment
Article I, New Section
Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
No law can restrict or ban abortion before the point of viability (around 24 weeks of pregnancy). Should it be deemed necessary to protect a patient's health, a healthcare provider can allow abortions beyond 24 weeks gestation. This will not alter the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to parent/guardian of a minor prior to them receiving an abortion.
​
Legal Abortion Time Frames in Florida:
2023 (Heartbeat Protection Act) - until 6 weeks
2022 - until 15 weeks
Prior to 2022 - until 24 weeks
Ballot Initiation: Citizen-Initiated
Effective Date: -
Support
Opposition
Overturn state's current six-week abortion ban. Argument that many women do not know they're pregnant by six weeks, leaving little time to receive care under Florida's two-trip requirement.
​
No legal interference of abortions prior to viability. Viability defined by Florida law "the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures." The exact determination of viability is different per pregnancy and would be determined by the patient's medical provider.
​
Abortions up until 9 months are a medically necessary rarity. Abortion after birth does not exist and should be classified as murder and felony.
​
Freedom for individuals to make their own personal health care decisions without interference from politicians.
​
Licensed and qualified healthcare providers would only be allowed to provide an abortion.
​
Argues the Financial Impact Statement affiliated with the amendment is weaponized to add deception and confusing language about the utilization of taxpayer dollars. (A more accurate financial impact alternative was not provided by "Yes on 4". However, they state this amendment does not intend to provide taxpayer funding for abortion.)
​
Supporters: "Yes on 4" Floridians Protecting Freedom, ACLU Florida, Florida Rising, Planned Parenthood, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East Florida, 100+ health care providers
​
Newspaper Supporters: Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, Tampa Bay Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post
Language within amendment is too broad. Terms like "viability" and "healthcare provider" are not well defined. A "healthcare provider" is not limited to medical doctors. "Mental stress" could also qualify as the "patient's health" exception. These issues could create legal loopholes which would allow more abortions later in pregnancy than voters initially intended.
​​
Undefined "viability" could extends the time frame of receiving an abortion more than what was legal with Roe vs. Wade.
​
Current Florida law allows a doctor to terminate a pregnancy at any point if the mother's life is at risk.
​
Parents/guardians are required to be informed prior to their minor's abortion. However, prior consent from the parent/guardian is not required. Abortion would then be the only medical procedure that can be performed on a minor without a parent's permission.
​
Undermines the rights of unborn children. Allowing late-term abortions goes far beyond when science deems a baby is capable of feeling pain.
​
A similar amendment was recently passed in Michigan. The same lawyers who wrote Amendment 4 in Florida are suing the state of Michigan to force taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Which could likely also occur in Florida.
​​
Opponents: "Vote No on 4", Florida Physicians Against Amendment 4 (400+ physicians)
​
No. 5 Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 6 and Article XII
Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
Homestead exemption is a state-level tax break for homeowners that reduces the property tax amount on their primary residence. Currently, the homestead exemption in Florida is $25,000. This amendment, if passed, would change this amount to account for inflation. For example, a 5% inflation rate would increase the exemption, or tax benefit, amount to $26,250
​
Ballot Initiation: Florida State Legislature
Effective Date: -
Support
Opposition
As the cost of living increases due to inflation, this amendment would increase the tax benefit which would lower a homeowner's yearly tax burden.
Research from Florida Tax Watch believes this amendment would provide moderate relief to citizens without significant fiscal impact.
​
Supporters: Florida Tax Watch
This amendment could reduce revenue for local governments, hindering their ability to pay for education, public safety and road maintenance.
​
Due to this revenue reduction, local governments may be forced to raise taxes for renters and local businesses to make up for the tax loss.
​​
Opponents: The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board
​
No. 6 Constitutional Amendment
Article VI, Section 7
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
Candidates running for state offices (governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and commissioner of agriculture) can receive public funding accrued from taxpayer dollars for their campaigns if they agree to spending limits. These funds match up to $250 of donations from Florida residents. If a candidate does not have access to large sums of money this system proves them the opportunity to have a competitive campaign. ​This amendment would completely repeal this program. Public campaign financing was initially approved by voters in 1998.
​
Ballot Initiation: Florida State Legislature
Sponsor of SJR1114: Palm Coast Republican State Senator, Travis Hutson
Effective Date: anticipated cost avoidance in 2028-2029 fiscal year
Support
Opposition
Taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for political campaigns, especially when the money is needed elsewhere for education, public services and transportation and restoration.
​
Supporters: majority of Republicans​
*first failed attempt to repeal this amendment occurred in 2010 (only 52.49% vote in favor)
Repealing this amendment would make it harder for less-wealthy people to run for political office.
​
In turn, state officers would be even more compelled to lead with the guide of special interests, lobbyists and PACs.
​
Last election in 2022, candidates collected around $13 million for campaign funds from the total Florida budget of $116.5 billion. (Charlie Crist received $4 million and Ron DeSantis received $7 million)
​
Opponents: League of Women Voters, The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board, majority of Democrats
​