Our Observation

This year’s election could easily be called the voters’ vote. With so many ballot amendments directly affecting how voters will be represented in the coming years, this election could be crucial to the future of how Florida picks its politicians and its laws.

But there are no simple yes and no answers to the questions asked on this year’s ballot. Take a look inside for our view on what’s good and bad about the state’s most important choices this Nov. 2.

Amendment 1: no

Amendment 1 seeks to repeal the use of public money to fund Florida political campaigns. A yes vote for this amendment would hurt the underfunded candidate.

We just saw an example of this in the Republican primary for governor in which candidate Rick Scott was funneling money into the race from his personal coffers, while candidate Bill McCollum — sans personal treasure chest — struggled to keep up. An infusion of public money — along with restrictions and spending limits — helped to level the playing field.

Elections shouldn’t be bought, and if a candidate has triple the funding, they can buy up triple the TV time and douse mailboxes with literature, drowning out their opponent’s message.

In 1998, 64 percent of voters approved using public funds for statewide campaigns. To qualify, a gubernatorial candidate must raise at least $150,000 from Florida residents, while a cabinet candidate must raise $100,000. Candidates cannot loan themselves more than $25,000 or receive more than $250,000 from a political party.

Once qualified, candidates must adhere to certain spending limits — $24.9 million in the gubernatorial race and $12.5 million for cabinet races in 2010. In 2006, $11 million in public money was doled out to statewide campaigns.

While we think these spending limits are a bit high — they were upped by more than 300 percent in 2005 — we support the continuation of public campaign financing. Everyone has a right to run for office and have a fair chance. Vote no on Amendment 1.

Amendment 2: yes

Amendment 2 is an easy call. It seeks to give members of the military an additional homestead property tax exemption. The amount would be based on the number of days in the past year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental U.S. It would take effect Jan. 1.

Yes, it would decrease state property tax revenue at an awkward time. But it’s a drop in the bucket — about $13 million.

We support a yes vote on Amendment 2. It’s a small thank you to all the military members who sacrifice so much for us on a daily basis.

Amendment 4: no

Amendment 4 attempts to establish that any local government wishing to amend its comprehensive land-use plan shall subject the plan to a vote of the city’s residents. In short, its passage would require voter approval of any development proposal that conflicts with existing comprehensive land-use plans. These types of development proposals occur quite frequently in fast-growing regions where outdated land policies fail to keep pace. Even here, in Winter Park, we have seen three changes in just the last few months.

Passage of Amendment 4 will force voters to frequently and regularly navigate countless ballot proposals, changing laws such as land-use codes of ‘mixed use’ vs. ‘office use’, determining appropriate future land uses, evaluating key transportation corridors, defining appropriate development standards for natural topography, instituting requested changes to conservation overlay districts. Controversy over these planning changes will create a rash of new political campaigns aimed at securing your vote. In such a scenario, it is the special interest group with the deepest pockets — not the average citizen — that wins.

The jargon-laden multi-page ballots headed our way if Amendment 4 passes are overwhelming. But that’s the point in recommending a ‘no’ vote. We already have in place a representative form of government, where elected officials work with professional staff to act in the people’s interest and to fully vet initiatives in the face of changing circumstances.

Several years ago, a local version of this was instituted in St. Pete Beach, where the local government’s costs soared while new development and the economy quickly ground to a halt. If passed, Amendment 4 could leave all Florida cities with a similar legacy. That’s one reason why the Florida League of Cities opposes passage of Amendment 4. Locally, groups opposed include the Winter Park Chamber of Commerce and the Orlando Regional Realtors Association.

Amendments 5 and 6: yes

If you want to know why Amendments 5 and 6 would be good for Florida, it’s as easy as looking at who’s fighting them: incumbent politicians. It’s become so rare for an incumbent to lose in Florida that we’re tied for last place in the nation in competitiveness of elections.

In 2004, not a single legislator was voted out of office. We kept them all, regardless of how unpopular they were.

That’s because the elections had already been rigged two years earlier in 2002, when legislators were allowed to redraw their own districts. Unfailingly, they drew them to improve their chances of being re-elected by shaping the district to include voters who tended to vote for their party.

Legislators have worked to keep the process that way for years, and for entirely self-serving reasons; it’s hard to lose when you make the rules.

Amendments 5 and 6 would change that, forcing districts to be more simply shaped and compact, encompassing areas with more politically diverse voters, rather than overwhelming majorities from one party or another. In short, they make elections fairer for everybody and make it easier to vote bad politicians out of office.

But in 2006, those same self-serving legislators may already have doomed Amendments 5 and 6, putting an amendment on the ballot that would require that any new amendments receive 60 percent of the public vote to pass. The ensuing ad campaigns effectively tricked voters into voting against their own self-interests. That November, the voters passed the amendment, ironically by only a 57.8 percent margin. At the time, only a 50.1 percent vote was necessary to pass an amendment.

The state’s legislators and congressmen successfully protected their seats, by overtly removing the power from the people in 2006. This time around, Amendments 5 and 6 will need 60 percent of the vote to pass. If they fail, millions of Floridians will lose, and a few hundred politicians will likely win again, no matter how bad a job they do.

Amendment 8: yes

In a time when teachers are being laid off and art and music programs are being cut throughout the state, it’s easy to say yes to an amendment that will cost the education system less money.

Next month, voters will decide whether the class size amendment, which limits class size to 18 students for kindergarten to third grade; 22 students for fourth through eighth grade and 25 students for ninth to 12th grade, should stick or be loosened up.

In November 2002, Florida voted to cap classes to the above sizes and the Orange County School Board had until 2010 to implement it. As one of the nation’s largest school districts with more than 175,000 students, this has been no easy task. The School Board has even proposed such measures as virtual classrooms and having school staff, such as guidance counselors, teach core classes to adhere to the limit. According to the League of Women Voters, the state has spent about $16 billion phasing in the limits and another $2.9 billion is proposed this school year for the final implementation.

As the law stands now, if a class is just one student over the limit, the school must hire another teacher and another class must be added. Under Amendment 8, these caps would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class, by specified grade grouping, in each public school, which would give schools more flexibility. Limits cannot increase by more than five students.

Those opposed to Amendment 8, including the Florida Education Association, say it’s a way to reduce education funding in the state and that voters made their opinions about class size clear when they voted for the limits in 2002.

The value of small class size is clear but in a time when essential programs are being cut to fill millions of dollars in school-budget shortfalls, perhaps a few more kids in the classroom isn’t so bad.