6
Florida Constitutional
Amendments
There’s more than abortion and legal weed on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Here’s what you need to know about all six amendments.
The proposed citizen-backed amendments to Florida’s Constitution, which would protect abortion access and legalize recreational marijuana, have received considerable attention over the last year. However, lawmakers have put four other amendments on the ballot in November that could affect school board elections, public money for statewide campaigns, hunting and fishing and homestead tax exemptions. Amendments require 60 percent of the vote to pass. We explain who is for and against each amendment so you have the information you need to vote on Nov. 5.
Amendment 1: Partisan School Board Elections
Florida school board elections have been nonpartisan since 2000, and candidates run without party labels. This amendment, proposed by a Republican-dominated legislature under HJR 31 and opposed by Democrats, would reverse that, beginning with the November 2026 midterms. Few states hold partisan school board elections, so if this does pass, Florida will join Alabama, Louisiana, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.
​
PRO Partisan races promote transparency. That’s according to Republican State Sen. Joe Gruters of Sarasota, who sponsored HJR 31 last year in the Florida Senate. “There’s no such thing as a non-partisan race anymore,” said Gruters, former chair of the Florida Republican Party. “These races are partisan, and the only ones that aren’t informed are being tricked.”
​
CON Partisan elections emphasize party allegiance at the expense of the public school experience, noted Cecile Scoon, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Florida. In 2022, Gov. Ron DeSantis — who pushed for book bans and the Parental Rights in Education law commonly known as “Don’t Say Gay” — inserted himself in school board races, endorsing 30 candidates, of which 25 won.
Plus, since Florida holds closed state primaries, which means only party members can vote in primaries, it can shut out independents, particularly in years when the election will be decided during the primary. State Rep. Kristen Arrington of Kissimmee, a Democrat, said unaffiliated voters were the largest sector in her county. “I do think this will disenfranchise them.” A 2023 University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab survey shows that 65 percent of Floridians oppose partisan school board races.
​
Amendment 2 : The Right to Hunt and Fish
As part of the outdoor group International Order of T. Roosevelt’s push to get constitutional amendments on several state ballots this year that would guarantee the right to hunt and fish across the country, Amendment 2 had near-unanimous bipartisan support in the Florida Legislature, which voted to put this amendment on the ballot. This amendment would establish hunting and fishing in the state Constitution “as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.” Currently, 23 states, beginning with Vermont in 1777, have such guarantees to hunt and fish, while two states, California and Rhode Island, guarantee fishing, but not hunting, as a right.
​
PRO Supporters, led by Yes on 2, tout Florida as the “fishing capital of the world,” emphasizing “tradition” and protecting the nearly $16 billion annual economic impact and 260,000 jobs from hunting and fishing. Yes on 2 maintains that the amendment does not undermine the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission and that hunting and fishing is “a revenue generating, sustainable practice to conserve wildlife, vs. a myriad of ideas that afford a cost to the taxpayer while simultaneously blocking hunters and anglers from participating.” Yes on 2 warned that “efforts are underway to criminalize hunting and fishing” and that Amendment 2 would “prevent extremists from taking away our rights.”
Several organizations — including the Coastal Conservation Association, United Waterfowlers of Florida, American Sportfishing Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Florida Sportsman’s Conservation Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — back the amendment.
​
CON Opponents, led by No to 2, maintain that Floridians’ hunting and fishing rights are already protected by Florida Statute 369.104, which states: “The Legislature recognizes that hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians. The Legislature further recognizes that these activities play an important part in the state’s economy and in the conservation, preservation, and management of the state’s natural areas and resources.”
Some opponents are concerned that the amendment’s broad language could block landowners from preventing trespassers from hunting on their private land, open Florida waters to foreign commercial fishing boats, bring back bear hunting and permit inhumane means of trapping, hunting and fishing, like steel jaw traps, in the guise of “traditional methods.” While the amendment states that it would not infringe on FWC’s mission, the Orlando Sentinel noted: “There’s no way to create a new ‘public right’ that wouldn’t curb the commission’s ability to manage species against threats like overhunting or efforts to manage disease.” The amendment could also limit the state’s ability to protect public land from wildfires and flooding.
The Humane Society of the United States, Speak Up for Wildlife Inc., Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. and the Florida Bar–Animal Law Section oppose the amendment.
Amendment 3: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Using marijuana to treat certain medical conditions, like cancer and epilepsy, has been legal in Florida since 2014 — and the list expanded in 2016 to include post-traumatic stress disorder, HIV, Parkinson’s disease and other health conditions. If passed, the citizen-driven Marijuana Legalization Initiative, backed by Smart & Safe Florida, would allow adults 21 and over to legally possess and use up to three ounces of marijuana and five grams in a concentrated form. It would allow them to purchase the substance at dispensaries without a medical marijuana card. (The amendment doesn’t address home cultivation.)
Three years ago, advocates attempted to get recreational use on the 2022 ballot, but that failed to pass Florida Supreme Court scrutiny because justices said the amendment language did not make it clear that marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Attorney General Ashley Moody tried to use that argument again last year in an effort to bar it from this year’s ballot. This year, justices allowed the language.
​
PRO Smart & Safe Florida maintained that legalization would bring new jobs, accountability, transparency and regulation “to ensure products are not laced with or contain potentially deadly chemicals.” The group also believes legal weed could boost tourism, citing “travel industry research” that says “29 percent of all active leisure travelers are interested in cannabis-related activities while on vacation.”
Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C. have legalized weed, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency plans to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, moving it from the Schedule I category, which includes heroin, to Schedule III, which includes Tylenol with codeine. Seventy percent of Floridians support legalizing recreational marijuana, according to a 2023 University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab survey.
Marijuana businesses, including Trulieve, Verano Holdings, Curaleaf Holdings, AYR Wellness, Cresco Labs, Green Thumb Industries and INSA back the ballot measure.
​
​ CON Amendment opponents maintained that pot is too potent, which is backed by some research. Drug researchers Jonathan Caulkins and Keith Humphreys, noted in Washington Monthly, that up until the end of the 20th century, pot’s average potency “never exceeded 5 percent THC, its active intoxicant.” These days marijuana sold in dispensaries averages 20 to 25 percent THC and the extracts can exceed 60 percent. In addition, the two published a study in the journal Addiction, which analyzed data from 1.6 million participants in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, and found that, for the first time in 30 years, more people are using the substance daily than drinking alcohol. This indicates that more people are being exposed to higher levels of THC than used in studies purported to demonstrate health benefits.
There’s also concern about Big Tobacco’s large investments in the cannabis industry. A state Republican Party resolution stated that passing the amendment would be “putting children at risk and endangering Florida’s family-friendly business and tourism climates.” DeSantis has called the initiative “radical” and claimed passage was “a license to have it [weed] anywhere you want. So, no time, place and manner restrictions,” which would lead to Florida starting “to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns.”
The Drug-Free America Foundation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce oppose the amendment.
Amendment 4: Abortion Rights
Since 1989, abortion access through 24 weeks had been protected under the state constitution’s privacy clause. In 2022, that changed when DeSantis signed into law a ban on abortions after 15 weeks gestation, which was immediately challenged under the privacy clause. In 2023, he signed a six-week ban on abortions — that law was put on hold pending the outcome of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on the 15-week ban. In April, the high court ruled that the privacy clause did not cover a right to abortion and upheld the 15-week ban, which allowed the six-week ban to go into effect May 1. At the same time, in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a federal right to abortion.
Those events mobilized Floridians Protecting Freedom to collect more than 1 million petition signatures to put the abortion question to voters. Abortion opponents have attempted to characterize the proposed citizen-backed amendment as “deceptive” and “misleading,” but the state Supreme Court determined the amendment’s wording was clear enough to be put to voters.
Here’s the text: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
​
Ninety-three percent of abortions occur within the first 13 weeks. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions occur later in pregnancy. Gallup polls have found that 85 percent of Americans want abortion to be legal. The ballot measure needs 60 percent of the vote to pass.
​
PRO “All Floridians deserve the freedom to make personal medical decisions, free of government intrusion," according to Floridians Protecting Freedom. Citing several reasons why many women opt for abortion – rape and incest, medical emergency, failed contraception — the organization said, "Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in this personal decision or to prevent nurses and doctors from treating their patients."
This is one of 10 abortion rights amendments on state ballots this year. Florida’s measure could be the most consequential because of its location since neighboring states also restrict abortion. If Florida guarantees abortion rights in its constitution, it will expand access to people in the South. Of the 84,000 abortions in 2023, out-of-state women accounted for more than 9,300 of them, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Currently, North Carolina is the only state in the South that legally allows abortions up to 12 weeks.
The amendment is supported by ACLU of Florida, Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Rising, Men4Choice and Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida.
​
CON The state Republican Party opposes this amendment because it would “destroy the ability of the people's elected representatives to pass common sense protections for women and unborn babies.” The party also said it “dramatically expands and legalizes the systemic killing of unborn babies in the state of Florida potentially up until birth under the guise of ‘protecting women’s health’ …”
Florida Voters Against Extremism (FVAE) is spearheading the campaign against Amendment 4 along with the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Florida Family Action Inc. FVAE is using misleading information to turn out the opposition, which may be a reaction to a recent Emerson College poll, which found that 57 percent of Floridians believe the six-week abortion ban is “too strict,” while only 15 percent said it was “not strict enough.” FVAE states on its website that Amendment 4 would allow abortion up until birth – a common and false GOP talking point. Other mischaracterizations of the amendment are that it would eliminate parental consent laws (it wouldn’t) and that the inclusion of the words “healthcare provider” in the amendment — an acknowledgment that people would be seen by nurse practitioners, physician assistants and/or physicians — would allow “nonmedical staff at abortion clinics” to practice medicine (it won’t).
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and the National Center for Life and Liberty also oppose Amendment 4.
Amendment 5: Inflation Adjustments for Homestead Exemptions
Homeowners can reduce their property tax burden with homestead exemptions on their primary residences. Under current law, $25,000 of a home’s value is exempt from all taxes, lowering the property tax burden. A second $25,000 homestead exemption applies to properties between $50,000 and $75,000 in value and excludes school taxes. It’s the value of this second homestead exemption that lawmakers are proposing to tie to positive change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with this amendment. Lawmakers put the “Annual Adjustment to Homestead Exemption Value” amendment on the ballot through House Joint Resolution CS/7017. If passed, it would take effect Jan. 1.
​
PRO Republican state Rep. James Buchanan of Sarasota, who sponsored the proposed amendment in the legislature, told the Florida Phoenix the amendment would make homes more affordable by lowering property taxes as the cost of living rises.
​
CON The Florida League of Cities has said that this amendment, if passed, would create “uncertainty year to year for local governments and residents alike by tying exemption to the CPI” and could disproportionately impact smaller towns with tax bases that are primarily residential. The Revenue Estimating Conference, which analyzed the financial impact of this amendment, predicted that if voters approve it, local governments would lose $22.8 million in fiscal year 2025-2026, ballooning to about $111.8 million by fiscal year 2028-2029.
Amendment 6: Repeal Public Campaign Financing for Statewide Candidates
Under current law, candidates running in statewide races, such as governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and commissioner of agriculture, can qualify for public matching funds for their campaigns — up to $250 for individual contributions — under specific conditions. They must raise at least $100,000 themselves (up to $150,000 for gubernatorial candidates); limit spending and contributions from personal funds and political parties; report the campaign financing data to the division of elections; and participate in a post-election audit. These matching funds come from the state’s general fund.
Voters approved this deal in 1998 with more than 64 percent of the vote. A measure to repeal this was on the ballot in 2010, but it failed to reach the 60 percent threshold necessary to pass.
​
PRO Florida Republicans are driving this ballot measure, arguing that taxpayer dollars should be used for constituent issues, not campaigning. “I think it’s absurd that anybody would be able to use taxpayer dollars for the purposes of campaigning,” said Republican State Sen. Travis Hutson, who sponsored the proposed amendment.
​
CON Opponents, including Democrat state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani and Marcus McCoy, state director for the advocacy group Equal Ground, who want to retain matching funds say public money “levels the playing field” and opens elections up to a wider variety of candidates to participate. The League of Women Voters has said that without matching funds, “only the wealthy and well-connected would be able to afford to run.”