In the 2024 Florida election, several key amendments were on the ballot, each carrying the potential to significantly impact the state. However, there seems to be some confusion surrounding why certain amendments didn’t pass even though they received what should be the majority vote—over 50%. The reason is that in 2006, Florida passed an amendment raising the majority required to pass any further amendments from 50% to 60%. Ironically, the amendment that set this higher threshold did not even receive the full 60% it proposed, but I digress. Let’s dive into the amendments and explore what their outcomes mean for the state.
Amendment 1: School Board Elections
Amendment 1 asked voters if they wanted to reverse the decision that made school board elections non-partisan, meaning candidates would no longer have party affiliations listed on the ballot. The amendment failed, receiving just under 55% of the vote, meaning school board elections will continue to be non-partisan.
This is not an unexpected outcome. School boards have an immense impact on the education system, and the focus of these elections should be on a candidate’s ability to address educational challenges, not on party affiliation. Florida has seen a deepening divide along political lines in recent years, and it’s easy to see how partisan labels could cloud voters’ judgment when it comes to choosing a candidate for an education-focused position.
In my opinion, keeping school board elections non-partisan allows voters to make decisions based on a candidate’s values, vision, and qualifications instead of being influenced by national party politics. This can lead to more thoughtful, independent leadership at the local level, free from the pressures of aligning with political ideologies that may not serve the specific needs of the community’s schools.
On the other hand, one downside is that non-partisan elections can sometimes lead to voter confusion. Without party labels, voters who aren’t as engaged in local politics may struggle to differentiate between candidates, potentially leading to lower voter turnout or uninformed choices.
Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish
Amendment 2 asked voters whether they wanted to enshrine the right to hunt and fish as a constitutional right in Florida. With around 67% of the vote, the amendment passed easily, ensuring that hunting and fishing will remain protected under Florida’s Constitution.
This result was to be expected, as hunting and fishing are deeply ingrained in Florida’s culture. For many, these activities aren’t just pastimes but part of their livelihood, particularly in rural communities. The amendment protects these practices from future legal challenges, reinforcing the notion that Floridians have a right to continue engaging in these activities.
However, there are some nuances to consider. While this amendment will safeguard hunting and fishing as they currently exist, it also brings up questions about how “traditional hunting methods” are defined. As someone who doesn’t hunt, I can only assume that this doesn’t mean a return to pre-modern tools like spears or bows and arrows, but rather ensures that current, accepted hunting practices are protected. Still, it’s important to understand that this amendment might also complicate future efforts to regulate hunting methods, especially if the state wanted to introduce stricter environmental protections or species preservation laws.
The main concern here is that the language of “traditional methods” could be interpreted too broadly, potentially making it harder for lawmakers to introduce new regulations aimed at protecting endangered species or preserving ecosystems from over-hunting. While hunting and fishing are critical to many Floridians, it’s important that these activities are balanced with environmental sustainability and conservation efforts, ensuring that the natural resources used for hunting and fishing remain abundant for future generations.
Amendment 3: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Amendment 3 proposed legalizing recreational marijuana for adults aged 21 and over. It received 55% of the vote but ultimately failed to reach the 60% threshold needed to pass.
This amendment had the potential to align Florida with other states that have already legalized recreational marijuana, such as Colorado, California, and Illinois. Advocates argued that legalization would create jobs, generate significant tax revenue, and relieve the burden on law enforcement by reducing arrests related to marijuana use. Additionally, it would provide a safer and more regulated environment for adult consumers.
Despite these benefits, the amendment failed to reach the necessary votes. The opposition, particularly from Governor Ron DeSantis, mounted a fierce campaign against the measure, warning of negative consequences, such as an increase in public marijuana use or an explosion of marijuana-related crimes. Fear-based advertising certainly played a role in this defeat. In reality, most states with legalized recreational marijuana have seen positive results, with limited negative side effects.
The failure likely stems from a combination of conservative resistance to marijuana reform and the state’s cultural divide. While Florida has a large medical marijuana program, and public opinion on marijuana has become more favorable in recent years, the idea of full legalization still generates skepticism among certain segments of the population. The influence of scare tactics in advertising—warning of public spaces turning into “drug-fueled parks”—likely swayed voters who were already uncertain about the social implications of legalization.
Although marijuana is still legal for medical purposes in Florida, the lack of full recreational legalization means that the state is leaving tax revenue on the table and keeping the black market alive. While there is no denying the negative health effects of overuse, the growing body of evidence supporting the benefits of marijuana, both medicinally and recreationally, suggests that this issue isn’t going away. Florida will likely continue to grapple with marijuana policy, and in time, this debate will likely return to the forefront.
Amendment 4: Abortion Rights
Amendment 4 aimed to guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, which is typically around 24 weeks. It failed, receiving just over 57% of the vote.
This was one of the most significant and divisive amendments on the ballot. If it had passed, it would have provided a clear legal right for women to seek an abortion up to 24 weeks, providing important protections for reproductive rights in Florida. As it stands, Florida’s current law allows abortions only up to 6 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and human trafficking.
This amendment’s failure is a major setback for women’s rights in Florida, especially considering the extreme restrictions that are already in place. For many, this issue is not just a matter of choice, but one of basic healthcare and autonomy. While the 6-week cutoff is what currently stands, many women may not even know they’re pregnant at that point, making it an impossible decision for those who face an unplanned pregnancy.
As a father of two, I understand the joy of bringing new life into the world, but I also recognize that not everyone is in a position to raise a child. This isn’t just about personal belief—it’s about ensuring that women have the ability to make informed, autonomous decisions about their bodies and futures. This decision should not be made by the state, but rather by the woman herself, in consultation with her doctor and her family.
Florida’s current abortion law, which restricts access to abortions after 6 weeks, forces women to make life-changing decisions in a matter of days, without adequate time to process or prepare. The consequences of such a law are deeply troubling, particularly for those without the financial means or social support to make such a decision under such restrictive time frames. If this amendment had passed, it would have offered a more reasonable window for women to seek the care they need.
Amendment 5: Homestead Exemption and Inflation
Amendment 5 proposed tying the value of homestead exemptions to inflation. It passed with just over 66% of the vote, ensuring that the exemption will adjust in response to inflationary changes.
Florida homeowners benefit from homestead exemptions, which lower the taxable value of their homes, thus reducing their property tax burden. By indexing these exemptions to inflation, this amendment aims to protect homeowners from the impact of rising property taxes in a time of inflation.
While this sounds like a benefit for homeowners, the reality is more complex. The homestead exemption primarily benefits those who already own property. Renters, on the other hand, don’t have access to these same benefits and may end up bearing the brunt of rising property taxes through higher rent prices. Florida’s housing market is already strained, and this amendment could further exacerbate the divide between homeowners and renters.
As property taxes rise due to inflation, landlords may raise rents to cover the additional costs. For renters, this creates an added financial burden, further squeezing Florida’s middle and lower-income families. This is yet another example of how the state’s housing market is increasingly tilted in favor of property owners, while renters face growing economic hardship.
Amendment 6: Public Financing for Campaigns
Amendment 6 asked voters whether they wanted to repeal a provision of the Florida Constitution related to public financing for statewide political campaigns. The amendment failed, with just over 50% voting against it.
Public financing for campaigns has been a long-standing tool intended to reduce the influence of money in politics. By providing public funds to candidates who meet certain criteria, it ensures that candidates without access to wealthy donors can still run competitive campaigns. The failure of this amendment means that Florida will continue to allow private donations to play a significant role in state elections.
In Summary
While the outcomes of many of these amendments were not particularly surprising, the results are nevertheless disappointing for those hoping for progressive change in Florida. The failure of Amendment 4 in particular represents a significant setback for reproductive rights in the state, but this battle is far from over. Floridians must continue to advocate for greater protections for women’s health, as well as for policies that will improve housing affordability and address environmental concerns. While some amendments, such as Amendment 5, may offer modest benefits for homeowners, the overall picture painted by these results shows a state still deeply divided on key social issues. Nevertheless, the important thing is that we stay engaged, keep the conversation going, and push for change, even in the face of setbacks. Our work isn’t done—it’s just beginning.
