Latest Headlines
- Softball Team Remembers Teammate Killed In Pace Wreck
- Rainy And Warmer Pattern Through Saturday Night
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
- Vote-By-Mail Ballots Mailed For 2025 Special Primary Election
- Two More Nights Planned For Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Bratt Ranch
- OK, So It’s After Christmas. When Is My Next Trash Collection Day?
- FHP Seeks Info On Fatal HIt And Run In JCPenney Parking Lot
- Two Charged After Backpack Found With Drugs, Cell Phones Near Atmore Prison
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- Santa And Mrs. Claus Take Last Minute Trip Through Century, Byrneville
Election Watch: 6 Of 9 Amendments Face Challenges Before High Court
August 4, 2010
The fate of several proposed constitutional amendments lies with the Florida Supreme Court after six of nine proposals set for the November ballot wound up facing legal challenges.
Property taxes, health care, legislative redistricting and class size requirements have all become the subject of challenges in the past two months. And it seems likely that the Supreme Court will be tasked with resolving them all before the November election.
Two amendments, one to repeal the campaign finance law providing public funding to state candidates and another that provides an extra property tax exemption to active duty military members who served outside of the United States, have not faced opposition.
A third proposal, Amendment 4, has been the target of complaints filed with the Florida Elections Commission. But the growth management initiative remains on the ballot after surviving a series of legal challenges over the past several years.
The remaining proposals, however, now find themselves before the state’s highest court.
-Amendment 3 would allow buyers who have not owned a home for eight years the chance to gather an additional homestead exemption on property purchased in Florida after Jan. 1, 2010. The Florida AFL-CIO and a Jacksonville homeowner challenged the amendment, which Tallahassee Circuit Judge John Cooper ordered off the ballot. Cooper ruled the proposed amendment’s ballot title and summary do not mention the effective date, which could lead voters to incorrectly assume they were eligible for additional homestead exemption benefits, which are limited to buyers of homes purchased after Jan. 1, 2010. The court is slated to hear arguments on the issue Aug. 18.
-Amendments 5, 6 and 7 all deal with drawing of Florida’s legislative and congressional districts. Amendments 5 and 6 are the products of FairDistricts.org, a grassroots organization that was attempting to “remove politics” from the process by spelling out boundary drawing rules, including prohibitions against favoring incumbents or political parties when drawing districts. Amendment 7 is the Legislature’s counter proposal to the FairDistricts.org. The Legislative proposal would create certain requirements for how to draw the lines, even if those requirements conflict with the FairDistrict amendments. Leon County Circuit Judge James Shelfer tossed the amendment. Saying he couldn’t understand it, Shelfer ruled he could not expect voters to either. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Amendment 7 and has ordered a stay on Amendments 5 and 6, pending their review.
-Amendment 8 would revise the restrictions on class sizes in Florida schools put into the Florida Constitution in 2002. Currently, individual classrooms are capped at certain levels. School administrators say the requirement is too stringent and could cause problems if a student moves into a school mid-year and classrooms are at maximum capacity. The Florida Education Association has filed suit alleging the proposal is misleading by failing to inform voters that it relaxes restrictions placed on class sizes by voters in 2002. FEA lawyer Ron Meyer said lawyers have a status conference set for Thursday that will likely yield a hearing date.
-Amendment 9, proposed by the Florida Legislature, would try to exempt Floridians from the health care overhaul pushed for by President Barack Obama. Shelfer struck the proposal from the ballot July 29, calling it “manifestly misleading” to voters. The Florida Attorney General has filed an appeal with the Florida Supreme Court, but a date for oral arguments has not yet been set. Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, who sponsored the amendment in the Senate, released a statement Tuesday saying Floridians should have the right to vote on health care choices. “The Supreme Court should do everything in its power to ensure that the people of Florida have the opportunity to vote on Amendment 9, instead of robbing them of their right to vote like the lower courts did,” he said.
By Kathleen Haughney, The News Service Florida
Comments
5 Responses to “Election Watch: 6 Of 9 Amendments Face Challenges Before High Court”
Carolyn Bramblett, you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re obviously a self-serving, low clas, yellow-bellied, dammed demcorat! How dare you not support the American military. You remind me of the person for which the following saga was written. To WIT: WAR
War is an ugly thing, Not the ugliest Of things; The decaged & Degraded State of moral & patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
A man(or WOMAN) who has nothing For which he/she is Willing to fight, nothing
He/She cares about more Than his/her own personal Safety, is a miserable
Creature who has no Chance of being free, unless made & kept so by the exertions of better men/women than him/herself.
You miserable creature, you don’t even appreciate the men and women who make it possible for ypou to sleep sfaely at night. You make me want to “P U K E!”
ON # 9, Does Judge Shelfer think everyone in Florida is a dummy except him?
I say let us vote on it up or down and see what happens. other states are voting on this and we should too.
Now I get it the reason the PNJ fish wrapper would like amendment 5&6 to pass They may get a demoncat or two elected in escambia county !!!!! Then with this said why the he!! would Mike Hill support this !!!!!!!!
REGARDING:
“Leon County Circuit Judge James Shelfer tossed the amendment. Saying he couldn’t understand it, Shelfer ruled he could not expect voters to either.”
Seems reasonable. If a judge had hours to study the wording and it left him confused, I doubt that is an accident or that the amendment would be a good one.
“School administrators say the requirement is too stringent and could cause problems if a student moves into a school mid-year and classrooms are at maximum capacity. ”
Three non amendment solutions suggest themselves:
(1) Figure it at the beginning of the school year and don’t worry about it until the next year, changes during the year should not require musical chairs for short term changes.
(2) Don’t admit more students than you legally can admit. You might have to ship a few to a different school, but that would only be until the end of the school year.
(3) Don’t cut things so close that a few transfers make or break you. Schools aren’t race cars to be run at their limits all the time.
Methinks they’re really looking for a way to simply not comply with the existing law‘s intent–reduce excuses for not getting an education.
“They don’t need another extra exemption for serving outside the United States.”
They may not need them, but it is a way of showing our appreciation for putting themselves between us and those who would harm us. It’s not just a job.
Legislators need to stop tripping over themselves offering another goodie to military people. They don’t need another extra exemption for serving outside the United States. That’s what they do—that’s what they signed up for—-service.