- January 30, 2025
-
-
Loading
Loading
The following text is used with permission from the Florida League of Women Voters' election guide, found at bereadytovote.org:
Synopsis: Amendment 1 is the utility-backed response to a third solar initiative that failed to make the 2016 ballot but would have allowed Floridians to buy power directly from third-party solar providers. The full ballot title for Amendment 1 is “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice.”
It essentially would enshrine in the state Constitution existing laws on solar energy, which opponents say have blocked solar growth in favor of existing utility companies like Duke Energy and Florida Power & Light by helping ensure their monopoly on the sale of power to Floridians.
Supporters counter that the amendment is needed to ensure state and local governments can pass regulations that protect solar-power consumers as well as utility customers.
A central issue is Florida’s current ban on the third-party sale of electricity. In most other states companies are allowed to install solar panels on homes or businesses and then sell the power directly to the consumer, bypassing utilities altogether.
Florida is one of only a handful of states that prohibit consumers from buying power directly from third-party solar providers.
A divided Florida Supreme Court approved the ballot’s wording in a 4-3 vote on March 31, 2016. If passed, Amendment 1 would take effect immediately.
A YES vote on Amendment 1 would:
A NO vote on Amendment 1 would:
Supporters: Duke Energy, Florida Power & Light Co.; Gulf Power Co.; Tampa Electric Co.; 60 Plus Association.
Opponents: Floridians for Solar Choice; EarthJustice; Florida Solar Energy Industries Association; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; League of Women Voters of Florida.
Synopsis: Two years after a similar amendment narrowly failed, Amendment 2 is on the ballot to legalize the use of medical marijuana to relieve the symptoms of people afflicted with specific diseases and conditions.
Amendment 2 differs from the 2014 amendment question by providing more specifics about which “debilitating medical conditions” would qualify for marijuana use by patients, with the approval of a physician.
It also permits caregivers to assist patients in administering marijuana treatments and sets up a regulatory scheme, administered by the state Department of Health, that includes issuing ID cards to patients and caregivers.
It does not provide legal cover to those who use marijuana outside the regulated use for medical conditions.
Current state law, passed in 2014, allows the use of non-euphoric cannabis for patients with medical conditions that cause seizures and severe muscle spasms. The Legislature also passed a law this spring that allows terminally ill patients to receive prescriptions for full-strength marijuana.
As of mid-April, 24 states had laws permitting the use of marijuana for medical conditions.
A YES vote on Amendment 2 would:
A NO vote on Amendment 2 would:
Supporters: John Morgan, Orlando lawyer; Florida Democratic Party; Service Employees International Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, AFL-CIO, Florida NAACP, Medical Marijuana of Florida, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Opponents: Florida Chamber of Commerce; Drug Free Florida Committee.
Synopsis: Florida’s Constitution already grants a property-tax exemption to the spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty. Amendment 3 authorizes the Legislature to extend that exemption to first responders who are “totally and permanently disabled” from injuries they received in the line of duty.
First responders are defined under existing law as police and correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics.
The Senate and House voted unanimously to place this amendment on the ballot.
State officials did not estimate how much the new exemption might cost local governments from lost property tax revenue.
If approved by voters, the amendment would take effect on Jan. 1, 2017, but would still need approval by the Legislature to become law.
A YES vote on Amendment 3 would:
A NO vote on Amendment 3 would:
Supporters: There does not appear to be any organized support or opposition.
Opponents: There does not appear to be any organized support or opposition.
Synopsis: Amendment 5 would ensure that low-income seniors who qualify for an additional homestead exemption as longtime residents do not lose that exemption if the value of their property rises.
The exemption to the state Constitution was originally approved by voters in 2012. The law currently allows cities and counties to grant a full exemption from property taxes to people with the same age and income limits if 1) the homeowner is 65 or older, 2) annual household income didn’t exceed $28,448 in 2015 (income limits are adjusted annually for inflation), 3) the just (market) value of their property is less than $250,000 and 4) the homeowner has lived there for at least 25 years.
The original intent was to ensure that long-time, low-income seniors don’t lose their homes because they can’t pay the tax bill. But seniors who now get the exemption would lose it if their home value tops $250,000.
Amendment 5, which passed the House and Senate unanimously, would lock in the exemption permanently once a senior qualifies, regardless of how much the property increases in value.
The amendment would take effect on Jan. 1, 2017, but is retroactive to 2013, which means a senior who qualified for the exemption in 2013, but lost it, would regain the exemption.
A YES vote on Amendment 5 would:
A NO vote on Amendment 5 would:
Supporters: There does not appear to be any organized support or opposition.
Opponents: There does not appear to be any organized support or opposition.
