Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Issue One, Issue Two – the Nov. 5 ballot was full for University of Florida students that voted in the state. Several local, state and federal issues and candidates were included on the ballot, including six amendments to the Florida constitution, each of which needed 60% approval to pass.
Let’s break down each amendment and how it fared in the election.
Florida Amendment 1: Partisan School Board Elections Amendment
This amendment would “require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election” in all school board elections during or after Nov. 2026. The measure reached the ballot through the Florida State Legislature and supporters argued that it would increase transparency for voters during elections. However, opponents argued that school boards should not be political and should strive to remain non-partisan.
Four other states including Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana and Pennsylvania currently require school board candidates to disclose their political affiliation on the ballot, while five other states give each district the option to require disclosure of party affiliation.
Falling short of the 60% threshold with 55% of votes, the state will maintain the current constitutional requirement for candidates to remain non-partisan.
Florida Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment
This amendment enshrines Florida residents’ right to hunt and fish in the state constitution and “would make it harder for legislators to create laws that would ban or restrict various forms of hunting or fishing,” according to The James Madison Institute.
The ballot stated that hunting and fishing by “traditional methods” would be protected, which includes all hunting and fishing methods legal at the time of passing. The ballot language also specified that the amendment would not limit the regulatory abilities of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), just the ability of legislators to place regulations on hunting and fishing. “Regulations, bag limits, seasons, determinations on if a species can be taken or not all still sit with FWC,” according to Florida Guides Association.
With 67.4% of votes, this amendment will make hunting and fishing a right guaranteed by the state constitution. Supporters of the amendment argued that it will “prevent extremists from taking away our rights,” according to Vote Yes on 2 and help preserve Florida’s traditions, providing economic opportunities.
This amendment framed the right to hunt and fish as a question of conservation rather than individual rights, with supporters saying, “Anytime wildlife populations should be managed, be it to control population or human interactions, hunting and angling should be considered first,” according to Florida Guides Association. This means that hunting and fishing will be considered before scientific methods to manage wildlife populations.
Opponents argued that the amendment makes it overly difficult for the government to place restrictions on the hunting and fishing of endangered or threatened species. The Humane Society of the United States described the amendment as “setting a dangerous precedent for how wild animals are viewed and treated.”
Currently, 23 states have the right to hunt and fish enshrined in their constitutions. Florida is now one of them.
Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative
This amendment would have legalized the purchase and non-medical/recreational use of marijuana for Florida residents above the age of 21. The ballot specified that marijuana may be consumed by “smoking, ingestion, or otherwise.” This amendment would have also allowed for the private growing of marijuana for sale, with a state license. However, individuals would not have been allowed to possess more than three ounces of marijuana at any given time or smoke marijuana in any public place.
This amendment did not pass during this election cycle with 55.8% of votes. The current law will be maintained, allowing the consumption of marijuana for medical purposes only.
Supporters of the constitutional amendment argued that the legalization of marijuana would improve economic growth, personal freedoms, public safety and states’ rights, reducing government spending and black market activity. Supporters also claimed that the new recreational market will generate more tax revenue that can fund other initiatives.
Opponents pointed to concerns about the maintenance of Florida as a family-friendly state and “exacerbating the public costs of drug-related problems,” according to The James Madison Institute. This amendment would also contradict federal law, a point opponents have often used to argue against the measure.
As of now, 25 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative
This amendment would have denied any individual the ability to “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health.” Essentially it would legalize abortion before the fetus is viable, meaning it would be able to survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks or when a healthcare provider determines an abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s health.
The amendment also explicitly stated that it would not change the requirement to notify a minor’s guardian before an abortion is carried out.
With a 57% vote, the amendment did not pass. This will uphold the current abortion law passed in May 2024, which prohibits abortion in all cases after six weeks. This six-week ban replaced Florida’s previous ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
Supporters of the amendment argued that healthcare decisions should be put in the hands of healthcare providers, not the government and that the current six-week ban puts women in serious danger considering the lack of accommodations for unviable or dangerous pregnancies.
Opponents argued that the amendment is too extreme and that the lack of definitions about what constitutes “viability” and “patient’s health” would put too much authority in healthcare providers’ hands.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion has been at the center of political debate with ten states including similar state constitutional amendments to Florida’s Amendment 4 on their respective 2024 ballots, with the amendments passing in seven.
Florida Amendment 5: Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value Amendment
Florida’s current Homestead Exemption Act lightens the burdens of property taxes on homeowners. The act provides a tax break that allows homeowners to reduce the taxable value of their homes by up to $50,000 depending on the assessed value. If a home is valued at $70,000, the first $25,000 would be fully exempt from property taxes, the second $25,000 would be fully taxed, and the last $20,000 would be fully exempt from all property taxes except for those by the school district.
The amendment would “require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions,” so if the inflation rate is determined to be six percent, the $25,000 available for exemption would be increased by six percent.
Passing with 66.1% of votes, property taxes will be made proportional to inflation, so the financial impact on homeowners will remain relatively consistent. As property values rise, the amount available for exemption will increase as well.
Supporters argued that the amendment provides necessary relief to homeowners as inflation continues to increase prices. Opponents cited the negative impacts on state tax revenue that could arise from the passage of the amendment.
Florida Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment
This amendment would have ended the practice of “public financing for [political] campaigns” for statewide offices like Governor and elected cabinet positions for candidates that agree to spending limits. Currently, funds for this program come from the General Revenue Fund, which encompasses all money received by the state and is used for the funding of most state government functions.
To qualify for public funds, candidates must:
- Be running unopposed
- Agree to expenditure limits
- Raise $150,000 or $100,000 for Cabinet candidates
- Limit personal campaign contributions to $25,000 and political party contributions to $250,000
- Report campaign financing data to the division of elections and complete a post-election financial audit
Supporters of the amendment argued that the money being used to fund these campaigns can better be used for other important issues and that the government should not be entitled to taxpayer money for election purposes. Many believe that the money being used for this program would be better allocated somewhere else.
Opponents of the amendment argued that the program helps level the playing field for candidates who lack the same connections and financial means as other candidates. They argued that by abolishing this program, some candidates would have an unfair advantage over other candidates. At 50.4 percent, this amendment did not pass on November 5. As a result, there will be a continued use of General Revenue Fund money by candidates for campaign purposes.
Florida saw its highest voter turnout since 1992 with 78.6% of those eligible casting their ballots. Only two of the six amendments passed despite predictions telling otherwise, which many attribute to the higher-than-predicted voter turnout.
Check out other recent articles from the Florida Political Review here.
