In addition to federal, state and local races, the Nov. 2 General Election

ballot includes six proposed amendments to the state constitution.

Voters will decide whether to repeal an amendment establishing public

financing for political campaigns; whether to provide a Homestead tax

exemption to property owners who are deployed military personnel; whether to

require voter approval for changes to comprehensive, or land use, plans;

whether to establish new standards for how legislative and congressional

districts are established and whether to revise class size requirements.

Some of these initiatives, such as a requirement that major land use changes

be brought to the voters and the so-called class size amendment, have drawn

much debate.

Others, such as the proposal to provide a tax break to military personnel

serving overseas, have drawn little.

The Breeze Newspapers editorial board has studied the pros and cons of the

proposed amendments, looked at sponsorship as well as who has come out for

or against each measure and has developed some recommendations.

We do not have a recommendation for each amendment and, instead, will list

some of the pros and cons for Amendment No. 1, Repeal of Public Campaign

Financing Requirement, and Nos. 5 and 6, Standards for Legislature to Follow

in Legislative and Congressional Redistricting, respectively.

Amendment No. 1

REPEAL OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING REQUIREMENT

Ballot Summary: Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State

Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for

elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.

The Florida Legislature sponsored the proposal.

In 1998, voters approved a measure designed to level the playing field in

state races by providing public funding to candidates who met certain

conditions related to fund raising. Ten states do this.

Those who support the amendment which would do away with the current

public funding system point to a substantial increase of spending limits

by the state legislature in 2005. This, proponents say, circumvents the

intent of the provision passed by voters which established voluntary

spending limits in exchange for public money.

Those who urge a no vote say there has been little to no public demand for

change and the repeal of public financing would reduce the number of people

who would be able to seek office.

Recommendation: No position taken

Amendment No. 2

HOMESTEAD AD VALOREM TAX CREDIT FOR DEPLOYED MILITARY PERSONNEL

Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require

the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by

law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the

United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who

receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on

active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in

support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt

amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year

that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United

States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by

the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.

If passed, the amendment would provide military personnel who are deployed

with short-term property tax relief. The exact amount to be exempted would

be decided by the state legislature and would be formulated based on the

number of days served overseas. The state has estimated that at current tax

rates, the provision could equate to $13 million statewide, annually.

Proponents of the measure, which received unanimous approval for placement

on the ballot, say its little enough for the state to do for those serving.

There has been no organized opposition.

Recommendation: Vote YES. We agree, a small, short-term tax break for those

serving is little enough in the way of mitigating some of the costs to those

deployed. We urge a YES vote on Amendment 2.

Amendment No. 4

REFERENDA REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS

Ballot Summary: Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new

comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the

proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the

local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning

agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides

definitions.

The amendment was placed on the ballot by Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.,

a Political Action Committee.

Proponents say the measure will put land use decisions back in the hands of

the people. Opponents cite a number of reasons voters should reject the

measure: It would replace public input with deep-pocket campaigns to sway

voters, it would stymie development at a time when economic recovery is

crucial, it would force multiple and costly special elections and local

governments would incur the additional related cost.

Recommendation: Vote NO on Amendment 4.

Count us among those who refuse to refer to Amendment 4 as “Hometown

Democracy.” It is anything but.

Despite its innocuous billing on the ballot and its designed-to-mislead

popular moniker, Amendment 4 would render public hearings, neighborhood

input and levels of review moot as they could be circumvented at the polls

by slick special-interest campaigns and confusing ballot summaries.

Meanwhile the costs for pricey special elections, for lawyers if the

proposed ballot language is challenged, and the requisite politicking could

quash small projects.

One study, provided by the Washington Economic Group, estimates Amendment 4 would reduce state economic output by $34 billion per year, costing the

state an estimated 267,247 jobs.

Opponents also correctly point out that the Amendment 4 concept has already

failed on a small-scale basis. St. Pete Beach has been embroiled in

taxpayer-funded litigation since voters bought the idea there in 2006.

Vote NO on Amendment 4. Land use decisions should not be politicized, nor

can Floridians afford to pay the price in terms of real costs and jobs lost.

Amendment No. 5

STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING

Summary: Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to

favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be

drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to

participate in the political process and elect representatives of their

choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts

must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must

make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

Amendment No. 6

STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

Summary: Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to

drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to

make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

The measures were sponsored by FairDistrictsFlorida.org.

Proponents of Amendments 5 and 6 say the proposals would set non-political

standards for redistricting, reducing gerrymandering and districting to

benefit incumbents. Opponents say it sounds good but wont accomplish those

goals. Whats more it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

Recommendation: No position taken.

Amendment No. 8

REVISION OF THE CLASS SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Summary: The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of

students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the

following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students;

for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25

students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of

students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become

limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher,

by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also

adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher

in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3,

21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through

12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not

apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient

funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment,

and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors

of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011

school year.

Proponents of the revision which include the School District of Lee County

say the amendment would give school districts flexibility and would save

money.

Opponents say voters approved smaller class sizes in 2002, setting class

sizes on a class-per-class basis and giving school districts ample time to

phase in the requirements.

Opponents also say that smaller classes mean a better education.

Recommendation: Vote YES on Amendment 8.

Smaller classes are but one component of a quality education and we are not

convinced that either the small bump proposed or giving school districts

some flexibility for classroom staffing would be detrimental to students.

Certainly voters have the right to reconsider, and amend, proposals passed

to keep them current. Certainly voters have the right to re-evaluate costs

and benefits.

The revision is a reasonable one and it will save money, something much

needed in these economic times. Education will not suffer. We recommend a

YES vote on Amendment 8.

Citizen editorial