so im assuming since youre reading this blog, youre registered to vote. and since yore registered to vote, im also sure youve received your sample ballot in the mail. now unless you scored a perfect verbal on the sats, ill go even so far as to say that youre a bit confused by the whole thing. this is my attempt to explain it all in relatively simple english so you dont have to clog up the line at your precinct next month struggling to remember the grammar chapter in your sat prep book only to get glared at by irate geriatrics holding colostomy bags or anxious first time voters waiting to have their voice heard (but next year theyll learn about the electoral college and why even though their canidate won the popular vote the other guy won) while exiting your booth.
up this year is the outright evil amendment 2, (if you havent heard of it youve either been living under a rock for the last few months or you dont live in florida.) the cunning wolf in sheeps clothing amendment 6, and a few others which are listed below. i have first the amendment as it appears on your sample ballot, second is my transliteration of the ballot-speak, and last, my unwarranted, possibly offensive opinion. take it for what it is.
in the next few days i will hopefully find the time in between work and work and work to research some of the canidates and the incumbents up for election as well. so far this is what i have, if you find something wrong dont call me an idiot, correct me and it will be duly noted, but i do implore you.
so here it is:
2008 FLORIDA BALLOT AMENDMENTS
Or: How I Overcame Convoluted Ballot-Speak and Learned to Love Politics
by Ryan McKee
Proposed Amendments:
Amendment 1
How the ballot reads:
NO. 1
Constitutional Amendment
Article 1, Section 2
Declaration of Rights
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.
Yes O
No O
How the Florida State Constitution currently reads:
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Translation of the Amendment:
When we enter the polls, Amendment 1 is asking for the addition to the Florida State Constitution that nullifies the line in A1,S2 that is highlighted in red. By voting NO on Amendment 1 the voter is saying they would want to keep the Constitution the same. Voting YES, the voter is saying that they would prefer the line in red is nullified from the Constitution.
In my opinion:
I recommend reading the citizen eligibility requirements to become a US citizen before making a decision on this. Research is KEY to understanding the repercussions on keeping or striking this line, e.g., when and why it was instated. Also know that the way the line in red is worded doesn’t enforce the prohibition or regulation per se: (“…may be regulated or prohibited…”) The line is purposely vague to accommodate for extenuating circumstances, for example, not all aliens ineligible for citizenship are discriminated against having property rights, but in some extreme cases it may be regulated or prevented all together. I have a hard time believing that the state would rape a legal hard-working alien of their property rights because of an archaic line in our Constitution. With the right attorney, this line can be interpreted to actually work in the benefit of the person(s) being discriminated against. Call me crazy, but I’m no racist, nor am I a xenophobe. Even though I’m still a bit confused about this one, I would feel comfortable leaving the line in and if it happens to come up in litigation in the future, let the Judicial Branch sort it out and set its precedence..
Amendment 2
How the ballot reads:
NO. 2
Constitutional Amendment
Article I, New Section
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.
The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.
Yes O
No O
There is currently no section in the Florida Constitution outlining the rights of marriage. Amendment 2 proposes adding a section to the Florida Constitution outlining this. Basically, if you want marriage to be protected as stated above, vote YES, if you disagree to these terms, vote NO.
In my opinion:
This bill is not about gay rights, it goes deeper than that. Everyone as well as conservatives should be frightened by the passing of this amendment. Regardless of your views on awarding marriage licenses to only a man and woman, Amendment 2 goes on to say it will take away the rights of any currently accepted form of domestic partnership regardless of sex in any of these unions, such as civil unions, common-law marriages, registered partnerships, etc. Any of the aforementioned types of currently recognized unions in Florida bring tax benefits to the table as well as reduction in insurance costs across the board. Essentially, voting NO on Amendment 2 will ensure that anyone sharing a home (regardless of their genders) with another person for the required amount of years will be considered stable and accountable and will receive the same tax benefits a married couple would. The law in Florida currently puts a ban on same sex marriage, so what is the point of extending that infringement of rights to heterosexual friends that have been living together for years, or a man and a woman who don’t find marriage necessary and consider a verbal commitment enough? In my opinion the law defining marriage solely between a man and a woman is a civil liberties infraction and the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that “moral disapproval” was an unconstitutional basis for condemning a group of people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Romer v. Evans (1996) “I think it is no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war” I am voting NO on Amendment 2.
Amendment 3
How the ballot reads:
NO. 3
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Sections 3 and 4
Article XII, New Section
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.
Yes O
No O
How the Florida State Constitution currently reads:
Article VII, Section 3(d)
Taxes; exemptions
(d) By general law and subject to conditions specified therein, there may be granted an ad valorem tax exemption to a renewable energy source device and to real property on which such device is installed and operated, to the value fixed by general law not to exceed the original cost of the device, and for the period of time fixed by general law
not to exceed ten years.
Translation of the Amendment:
When Article VII, Sec. 3(d) was adopted in 1980 it protected homeowners in the state of Florida from paying extra property taxes in the event that they add solar panels or other types of renewable energy sources to their house which would raise the property value, thus raising the property tax, but was not intended to last longer than ten years, or until 1990. An ad valorem tax is a tax based on the real value of the house. On February 27, 2008, the House passed $18.1 billion in renewable energy tax incentives (H.R. 5351), including an extension of the tax credit for energy-efficient home improvements. The bill is similar to the one passed last year, which was ultimately removed from the 2007 Energy Bill, signed into law in December 2007. (energystar.gov) This incentive has been basically pointless, because since the original ad valorem exemption expired in 1990, the tax rebate you were being handed is going right out the door again to pay for the property tax hike on the same item you were getting rebated on!
Amendment 3 will strike Sec. 3(d) and replace it with the proposed amendment which has no lifespan. It will also ensure that the addition of such renewable energy devices is not factored into the ad valorem taxation of the property. The added section to Article XII will allow the installation of protective measures to the house (i.e., hurricane shutters) to fall under the ad valorem tax exemption as well. In less fluffed language, vote NO on Amendment 3 if you want homeowners to pay higher ad valorem taxes for installing renewable energy devices and/or protective measures and vote YES on Amendment 3 if you disagree with the taxation of these implements.
In my opinion:
Simple: Why should homeowners be taxed for using renewable energy sources? Furthermore, in a state prone to hurricanes such as Florida this exemption on safety measures only makes sense. Taxation on safety and conservation is nonsense. If this bill were to get passed, we run the risk of deterring homeowners from pursuing newer forms of energy conservation for fear of higher property taxes. Also, less people would be prone to protecting their house against hurricanes, and could potentially have a worse outcome in the case their area gets hit hard. This amendment should have never had a lifespan on it in the first place. I am voting YES on Amendment 3.
Amendment 4
How the ballot reads:
NO. 4
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Sections 3 and 4
Article XII, Section 28
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.
Yes O
No O
Translation of the Amendment:
Amendment 4 if it is passed will add a subsection; Section 3 [(g)] to Article VII granting property tax exemption for people who dedicate said property to perpetual conservation. Amendment 4 will also add a section (28) to Article XII defining the schedule of this tax exemption to start on January 1, 2010. Vote YES on Amendment 4 to allow the tax exemption for land preservation donors, vote NO on Amendment 4 to refuse the tax exemption for these donors.
In my opinion:
Here’s an easy one, finally, this actually makes perfect sense. The state uses up a lot of our money buying up property to donate to preservation and this essentially gives property owners an incentive to dedicate their land to preservation. I am voting YES on Amendment 4.
Amendment 6
How the ballot reads:
NO. 6
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 4
Article XII, New Section
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.
Yes O
No O
Translation of the Amendment:
Amendment 6 if it is passed would require property appraisers to assess “working waterfront properties” such as marinas, boat launches, and drystacks and tax them according to their use, not to their potential use, say if a luxury condo was built in its place. Amendment 6 would also require commercial marine facilities to fall under property appraiser’s assessment as well, which includes but is not limited to: waterfront restaurants, commercial fishing businesses, and marine construction and repair facilities. Assuming Amendment 6 gets passed, property appraisers could potentially appraise the land that these facilities are operating on to be worth more if waterfront properties were constructed and taxed accordingly, possibly putting these companies or marinas out of business due to hiked taxes. On the other hand, if Amendment 6 does not get passed, it wouldn’t protect the smaller businesses from getting taxed higher resulting in the same problem. Vote YES on Amendment 6 if you want the appraisers to be required to assess working waterfront properties, Vote NO on Amendment 6 if you do not want them to.
In my opinion:
My solution: propose a flat tax rate for all waterfront businesses. When deciding how to vote on Amendment 6, I examined the long-term effects and potential abuses that could arise from either scenario. I came to the conclusion that it would be better to vote NO on Amendment 6 for fear of an eminent domain issue. Worst-case scenario, this amendment could possibly be the beginnings of infringement upon the 5th Amendment Rights of Americans. Other states have a similar amendment proposed to their states constitution as well, including Alabama, California, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas. I would rather not run the risk of abuse of the eminent domain laws that were given precedence in the United States Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005) which prompted heated dissenting opinions from Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 decision that “the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible ‘public use’ under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”.
Kelo v. City of New London started in Connecticut in 1998 as the city's tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were growing desperate for a new hope of economic developments. Pfizer sought to acquire 90 acres of land on in the neighborhood of Fort Trumbull which included 115 residential and commercial lots. The city saw this as a potential opportunity for economic growth and created The New London Development Corporation which subsequently made offers to the owners of the properties, but 15 did not wish to sell. Nine of these owners, led by plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London after it decided to exercise its power of eminent domain and condemn the 15 properties. The plaintiffs argued that the power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation"; under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. State and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the defense and from there was appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where it also ruled in favor of the city of New London. As a result, the former neighborhood of Fort Trumbull was bulldozed to the ground and its residents permanently relocated. Today, the area that was dozed and that formerly held 115 residential and commercial lots sits EMPTY, generating no tax revenue for the city of New London, essentially making the precedence of Kelo v. City of New London all for naught and opening the door for it to happen again in the future all over the country. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline, and was said to be technically in default. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN IN FLORIDA AND VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 6!
Amendment 8
How the ballot reads:
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 9
Local Option Community College 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.
Yes O
No O
Translation of the Amendment:
Amendment 8 is proposing to add a subsection [(c)] to Article VII, Sec. 9 that would require each county in which there is a community college to vote to authorize a sales tax that would supplement the schools funding. Amendment 8 also states that the tax would gradually lessen after five years and may be reauthorized by voters after the lifespan is expired. Vote YES on Amendment 8 to propose the tax option and put the responsibility in the local authorities, vote NO on Amendment 8 to keep school funding the states responsibility.
In my opinion:
This is dangerous. If this bill is passed for instance and the voters in a county decide to approve the tax, a community college could launch a new program based on the taxes levied from the community. But after five years, the taxpayers may decide to not renew the appropriations and it could mean the death of the program. I don’t feel comfortable knowing the education of my community relies the fiscal mood of the taxpayers. It is the responsibility of the state to appropriate funds to public schools and this amendment has no place in a state constitution. I am voting NO on Amendment 8.
Posts
