What’s on Florida’s 2024 ballot?: A complete guide to the six proposed state amendments

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — As Floridians head to the polls this fall—whether in Jacksonville, Miami or anywhere in between—every voter will face six pivotal questions that could reshape the state’s future. These proposed constitutional amendments, from hot-button issues like marijuana legalization and abortion rights to lesser-known but equally impactful topics, demand attention from every citizen.

>>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<<

Two of the amendments, centered on marijuana and abortion, have dominated the headlines, with well-funded campaigns advocating for both sides. But the other four, despite being just as significant, have flown largely under the radar.

Keep in mind, these aren’t just simple majority votes—each amendment requires a supermajority of 60% to pass, making your vote all the more critical in deciding the direction Florida will take.

READ: List | View your sample ballot before early voting

READ: County-By-County | Early voting locations where you live

Action News Jax’s William Clayton has put together a comprehensive voter guide for each proposed amendment, offering insights from both supporters and opponents to help you make an informed decision:

Amendment 1: “To require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election.”

This amendment proposes changing how school board members are elected in Florida. Currently, school board elections are nonpartisan, meaning candidates don’t list a political party affiliation like Republican or Democrat when they run. If voters approve this amendment, starting in 2027, school board candidates would be required to declare a party, and elections could involve party primaries before the general election.

In Support:

Supporters of this amendment argue that this change would provide voters with more transparency, giving them a clearer idea of the candidate’s political views through partisanship. Many of the amendment’s supporters point to Governor Ron DeSantis’ recent involvement in school board races, believing voters should have full knowledge of a candidate’s political affiliation to make informed decisions, especially with the growing debates about education policies such as parental rights, school curriculum, and the role of teachers’ unions.

In Opposition:

Opponents argue that introducing partisan politics into local school board elections could polarize the process even further and create unnecessary division in communities. They believe the focus of school board elections should remain on students and educational policies rather than party loyalty. They fear that this amendment could turn schools into political battlegrounds, where decisions about education are influenced more by partisan interests than by what’s best for students.

Amendment 2: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”

This amendment would add a provision to Florida’s constitution that guarantees the right to fish and hunt as a way to manage wildlife. While fishing and hunting are already legal and popular activities in Florida, supporters of the amendment believe it’s necessary to protect these practices from potential future restrictions. By embedding the right to fish and hunt into the constitution, this amendment would make it harder for future lawmakers to pass legislation that could limit or ban these activities.

In Support:

The amendment has garnered significant support from Florida’s agricultural commissioner Wilton Simpson, hunting organizations, and watersport-related interest groups. Advocates for the amendment argue that fishing and hunting are long-standing traditions in Florida that contribute to conservation efforts by controlling wildlife populations and funding state conservation programs through licensing fees.

The campaign behind the amendment, “Yes on 2,” emphasizes the importance of preserving Florida’s outdoor lifestyle and the economic benefits associated with recreational fishing and hunting. As the “Fishing Capital of the World,” Florida attracts anglers and hunters from across the globe, contributing to the state’s tourism industry. More information can be found on the campaign’s website here.

In Opposition:

Environmental groups have come out against the amendment, arguing that it could open the door to less humane hunting practices by enshrining the use of “traditional methods” in the Constitution.

The campaign against the amendment, “No on 2,” claims that the language is too vague and could potentially be interpreted to allow hunting techniques that have been banned for being cruel or environmentally damaging to Florida’s already delicate ecosystem. Opponents argue that this amendment is unnecessary because hunting and fishing rights are already well-protected under current laws. The opposition group has outlined its position on its website here.

Amendment 3: “Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise.”

This amendment would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Florida for adults aged 21 and older. Under current law, marijuana is only legal for medical use with a doctor’s prescription, and those without a medical card with possession of the substance can result in jail time. If this amendment passes, Floridians over 21 would no longer need a medical prescription to purchase or possess cannabis products, and private companies would be allowed to obtain licenses to grow and sell marijuana for non-medical use.

In Support:

Proponents of this amendment argue that legalizing marijuana for recreational use is a matter of personal freedom and aligns with conservative values of individual responsibility. The “Yes on 3″ campaign details that adults should be free to make their own choices as long as those choices do not harm others, similar to 24 other states that have already legalized marijuana for recreational use.

Additionally, those in support, including Former President Donald Trump, argue that legalization will allow state law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes, enhancing public safety by redirecting resources toward violent crime and other significant threats to communities instead of drug offenses.

A 2023 state report suggested that legalizing recreational marijuana could generate over $195 million annually in state and local tax revenues, although the allocation of these funds remains uncertain. More information can be found on the campaign website here.

In Opposition:

Opponents of the amendment, including current Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters and Governor DeSantis, who launched the “Vote No on 3″ campaign to keep recreational marijuana illegal, have voiced concerns that it could lead to widespread commercialization of marijuana in Florida, similar to what has happened in states like Colorado and California. They worry that the amendment, because it would be part of the state’s constitution, could limit the state’s ability to regulate the industry effectively.

Critics also claim that legalization could lead to an increase in marijuana-related issues, including smell, public intoxication, and impaired driving. The opposition group’s website with further information can be found here.

[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]

Amendment 4: “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 seeks to enshrine the right to an abortion in Florida’s constitution, guaranteeing that no law can restrict or ban abortion before the point of viability, which is generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy. It also includes provisions that would allow abortions beyond 24 weeks if a healthcare provider considers it necessary to protect the patient’s health. This amendment was proposed in response to recent laws passed by the Florida Legislature that banned abortion access after six weeks, following the fall of Roe v. Wade.

In Support:

A “yes” vote on this amendment would overturn the state’s current six-week abortion ban, which many pro-choice advocates argue is too restrictive. According to these groups, including “Yes on 4″, many women do not even know they are pregnant by six weeks, making it nearly impossible for them to seek an abortion within that timeframe.

Pro-choice organizations, such as Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF), have launched campaigns to promote the amendment, arguing that the government should not interfere in personal healthcare decisions. They stress that the decision to have an abortion should be left to the individual and their medically-trained healthcare provider, not lawmakers. FPF’s mission and campaign details can be found here.

In Opposition:

Opponents of the amendment, argue that the language is reportedly too broad and could lead to an increase in late-term abortions past the state’s current deadline. They also claim that key terms like “viability” and “healthcare provider” are not adequately defined, which could create legal loopholes and allow more abortions later in pregnancy than voters might intend.

Critics also argue that this amendment would “undermine the rights of unborn children.” The “Vote No on 4″ campaign highlights its concerns here.

Amendment 5: “Require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead.”

This amendment seeks to adjust the current $25,000 homestead tax exemption for non-school property taxes to account for inflation. The homestead exemption is a tax benefit available to Florida homeowners that reduces the amount of property tax they have to pay on their primary residence. If this amendment passes, the $25,000 exemption would increase each year in proportion to the rate of inflation as the cost of living rises in the state. For example, a 5% inflation rate would increase the exemption to $26,250.

In Support:

Supporters of this amendment argue that it would help homeowners by ensuring that the tax exemption keeps pace with inflation, effectively lowering their tax burden each year. This would be particularly beneficial for homeowners on fixed incomes, such as retirees, who might struggle to keep up with rising costs.

Florida Tax Watch, a Florida research group, has endorsed the amendment, noting that it wouldn’t have a significant impact on the state’s overall budget but could provide meaningful relief to Florida families who own homes.

In Opposition:

Opponents, such as the Palm Beach Post Editorial Board, argue that the amendment could reduce revenue for local governments, making it harder for them to pay for essential services like public safety, road maintenance, and education. They fear that if property tax revenues decline, local governments may be forced to raise tax rates or shift the tax burden onto renters and local businesses. Some opponents also question whether the benefits to homeowners would be significant enough to justify the potential impact on local budgets.

Amendment 6: “Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution which requires public financing for campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.”

Florida’s current election system allows candidates running for statewide offices, such as governor, to receive public funding for their campaigns if they agree to certain spending limits. The funds come from taxpayers and are used to match donations from individual Florida residents of $250 or less. The purpose of this system is to encourage small-dollar donations and give candidates without access to large sums of money a chance to run competitive campaigns.

In Support:

This amendment proposes eliminating the public financing program altogether. Supporters of the repeal argue that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund political campaigns, especially at a time when the state faces other financial needs, such as improving schools, roads, and public services. They believe political candidates should raise their own money from supporters and not rely on public funds.

In Opposition:

Opponents of the repeal, including the League of Women Voters and other advocacy groups, argue that public financing helps level the playing field for candidates who might not have access to wealthy donors or large political action committees (PACs). By matching small-dollar donations, the current system allows “more diverse candidates to compete, ensuring that campaigns aren’t only dominated by those with deep pockets.”

[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]

Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.