■ Columnist Scott Maxwell on amendments, yes and no.

Florida constitutional amendments for 2020: Pros and cons

Constitutional amendments are often confusing in Florida.

Sometimes they feel like they’re written in a language that’s a mashup of Shakespeare and Yoda.

So I’m here to try to break them down as simply as possible. I’ll tell you the arguments for each one, the arguments against, which groups support them, which groups urge no votes and howI’m voting. Do whatever you want. It’s your constitution.

Amendment1: Voting is for 18-year-old citizens

This is theweirdest amendment on this year’s ballot, because itwould have virtually no impact. It says that, in order to vote in Florida elections, you must be 18 years old, a resident of Florida and a citizen of theUnited States … even though Florida lawalready says all those things.

Opponents say this amendmentwas designed to inflame the emotions of uninformed voters by making them think that undocumented citizens are running around the state, voting everywhere.

Proponents say this amendmentwould make it super-extra clear that “only citizens” can vote.

This amendment is the only one with pretty unanimous oppo

sition. Groups that lean both left (League ofWomen Voters of Florida) and right (Florida TaxWatch) have joined forces to urge no.

Vote yes: If youwant to be extra sure that voters are 18-year-old Floridians and U.S. citizens.

Vote no: If you agree with most observers that Florida lawalready says that.

I’m voting: No. This is a (non-)solution in search of a problem— and a divisive, gaslighting one at that.

Amendment 2: Raise the minimumwage

This is the highest-profile ballot measure of 2020 — amove to gradually increase the minimum wage in Florida fromthe current level of $8.56 an hour to $15 an hour by 2026.

Supporters say this is needed in a state full of low-wage jobs where fulltimeworkers still can’t make ends meet. They point to the state’s affordable-housing shortage as evidence that the Sunshine State’s current economy isn’tworking.

Opponents say raising the minimumwage will hurt small businesses, cost the state jobs and raise the prices of products for everyone, negating the benefit of higherwages.

Supporters say higher prices are a fair price for consumers to pay to ensure the people serving them can live— and note that opponents have wrongly predicted an economic Armageddon every time minimumwages have been raised in the past. Opponents say this time it’s different because the increasewould be so much.

Vote yes: If you think workers deserve more than $8.56 an hour ($342 aweek for full-timers) and are willing tomaybe paymore as a consumer to make that happen.

Vote no: If you think raising the minimumwon’t really solve cost-of-living problems and might actually exacerbate them.

I’m voting: Yes. This state has spentway too much time trying to cultivate an economy built around low-wage jobs. We’re talking billions of tax dollars subsidizing tourism. For years, I’ve advocated ceasing those subsidies instead of raising minimum wages. But ifwe’re going to keep artificially inflating the number of low-wage jobs here, we should also try to ensure the people who fill those jobs can eat and keep a roof over their head … without requiring even more taxpayer subsidies in the form of food and housing assistance.

Amendment 3: Toptwo primaries

Thiswould change the waywe vote in Florida— at least for state races, such as governor and the Legislature. Instead of holding separate Democratic and Republican primaries, the statewould just hold one big primary where everyone votes, and the two candidates who receive the most votesmove on to the general election inNovember.

Proponents say this is the fairestway to stage elections— allowing everyone to vote on every candidate every time.

Opponents include both the Republicans and Democratic parties, who like the control they have over the process (and that they get taxpayers to fund their private primaries). They also note that this new system could theoretically lead to two candidates from the same party advancing to the general election inNovember.

Proponents say: So what? If one party has two good candidates, and the other party only has a doofus, why should the doofus be guaranteed a spot in the finals?

Opponents alsoworry this system might dilute the voting power of minorities while proponents note that hasn’t happened other places and instead argue the system diminishes the chances of extremist politicians, since candidates will have to appeal to all voters.

Vote yes: If you think Florida’s political system needs an overhaul and that every voter deserves a chance to vote in every election. (TaxWatch says yes.)

Vote no: If youlike Florida’s political status quo orworry about the effects on minority representation. (The League says no.)

I’m voting: Yes. I’m not sure there’s a fairerway to stage elections than allowing every voter to vote on every candidate every time. Plus, I sure don’t think Florida’s current, partydriven political system is working swimmingly right now. The question is: Do you?

Amendment 4: Vote twice on all amendments

After you read this column, you’re not allowed to comment on it … until you read it again two years later.

Not really. But that’s similar to the goal of this amendment, which basically says no future amendment could ever take effect unless voters approve it twice in two separate elections. (The ballot measure’s nebulous title—“Voter Approval of Constitutional Amendments”— doesn’t really tell you what it does.)

Supporters, which include GOP legislators and Florida’s big-business lobbyists, say this is away of making sure voters are really sure about what they’re doing and discourage them from clunking up the constitution on a whim.

Opponents, which include the League and most newspaper editorial boards, say this is just politicians’ and Big Business’s way of trying to make it harder for Floridians to get the things theywant— like smaller class sizes, medical marijuana and an end to gerrymandering. Supporters also note that changing Florida’s constitution is already difficult, with many obstacles before an amendment can reach the ballot and then requiring 60% approval requirement.

Vote yes: If you think voters shouldn’t be trusted to pass amendments unless they pass them twice.

Vote no: If you think that’s not howdemocracy works … like ever.

I’m voting: No. This is an obvious attempt to try to get voters to slap handcuffs on themselves. If politicianswant everyone to vote twice on things, let them go first.

Amendment 5: Tax breaks for homeowners

In Florida, citizens get tax breaks on houses they live in, in the form of 3% caps on annual tax increases. That means if property values increase by 6% in your neighborhood one year, for example, your tax bill stillwon’t rise by more than 3%.

Right now, you can transfer those savings to another home if you buy it within two years. This amendmentwould increase that home-buying windowto three years. State economists have estimated the impact on local government revenues would be minute— about 0.03%.

Vote yes: If you think homeowners should be allowed more time to keep their homestead-exemption savings.

Vote no: If you don’t. I’m voting: Yes. This is a niche bill that probably won’t affect many people. But it seems relatively harmless and means homeownerswon’t be punished for taking a bit more time to find a new place to live or waiting for new-home construction to finish.

Amendment 6: Tax

breaks for veterans families

Right now, Florida veterans who suffer from permanent, combat-related disabilities get a break on their property taxes. This amendmentwould allow spouses of those disabled vets to continue receiving that tax break if the veteran dies first.

Supporters, including Florida legislators who put this one on the ballot, says it’s just the right thing to do for families who have made sacrifices for their country and that the costs to local governments will be minimal.

Opponents, including the League ofWomen Voters, say the intent may be noble, but that the Florida Constitution isn’t the place to deal with something like this.

Vote yes: If youwant to let disabled vets’ spouses keep tax breaks longer— and are willing to give up the local revenues to make it happen.

Vote no: If you think the tax break specifically for the veterans themselves is good enough— or that the Constitution isn’t the place to handle tax policy.

I’m voting: Yes. This is another super-niche bill; one that legislators seem to have advocated, in part, to burnish their veteran credentials. But sure, the families of veterans who have paid a physical price for serving their country deserve tax breaks as much as anyone.