Pubdate: Sat, 18 Oct 2014
Source: Florida Times-Union (FL)
Copyright: 2014 The Florida Times-Union
Contact:  http://www.jacksonville.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/155

OUR VIEW ON THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Constitutional amendments should be rare. They should be saved for 
issues that the regular political process is unable or unwilling to handle.

That is the reason that 60 percent is needed for amending the Florida 
Constitution. Direct democracy ought to be the exception in this republic.

In this general election, voters will get a break. There are just 
three proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot as opposed to 
the 11 in 2012.

YES ON AMENDMENT 1

Protecting water in the Sunshine State is likely to be the natural 
resource issue of the next generation, not only drinking water but 
the water that intersects the state like a blood system.

The Floridan aquifer already is under stress in various parts of the 
state. The recharge areas must be protected, as should the state's springs.

Therefore, Amendment 1 deserves support.

It would devote one-third of documentary stamp taxes on real estate 
sales to a fund that would be used for land and water conservation, 
management and restoration.

The funds would be used to acquire and protect lands needed for water 
sources, protect beaches, protect and restore degraded natural 
systems and waterways, manage wildlife habitat and provide funds to 
manage parks and trails for related uses.

Therefore it is important to support a constitutional amendment that 
meets the goals of a good amendment.

It has broad application for the entire state.

It has not been handled by the Legislature which has consistently 
swept funds into the general budget in recent years. There is no 
reason to trust the Legislature to do the right thing without a 
constitutional mandate. This is not a new tax or a tax increase; it 
simply puts the revenue where it always was intended.

Funding is for a finite term of 20 years. And the revenue represents 
less than 1 percent of the total state budget.

The major loser in this amendment is likely to be affordable housing, 
which also has a trust fund under the Sadowski Act. Its funds also 
have been swept into the general fund in recent years. Giving 
priority to environmental protection would be more likely to put 
other doc stamp uses like affordable housing in an even more secondary place.

Nevertheless, protecting the environment is an essential state use 
that deserves constitutional protection. The beautiful landscape of 
Florida is part of this state's brand; there are business reasons to 
protect it beyond the aesthetic ones.

Once precious environmental land is developed it is rarely ever 
recovered. Florida's population will continue to grow. Sensitive land 
must be protected now before it is too late.

Florida must be protected for future generations.

NO ON MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

Amendment 2, the so-called medical marijuana amendment, is well 
intentioned but seriously flawed.

It is opposed by seven former justices of the Florida Supreme Court, 
Sheriff John Rutherford, the Florida Sheriffs Association and the 
Florida Medical Association.

Critics warn that the amendment is too vague and will lead to abuses 
like pill mills. Supporters say that the Department of Health would 
be required to monitor centers that produce and distribute it, but 
that would create new burdens on the state government.

The bill puts physicians in the impossible position of being 
gatekeepers without the same controls as the Charlotte's Web version 
that was approved by the Legislature in the last session.

The amendment also creates a massive freedom from liability that is 
nearly unique in state law.

The Florida Legislature already showed how to handle medical 
marijuana responsibly with the Charlotte's Web version that is 
controlled, limited and highly regulated.

Careful and controlled expansion within the halls of the Legislature 
is the way to go for true medical marijuana, not this overly vague amendment.

A bill like this could be amended to fix its flaws. It's not so easy 
with a constitutional amendment.

NO ON AMENDMENT 3

Three new Supreme Court justices are slated to retire on Jan. 8, 
2019, the same day as a new governor is sworn in.

Should an outgoing governor be allowed to make these appointments? 
That's what this would do.

This is a classic abuse of a constitutional amendment. Current law is clear.

There are some partisan implications here. Some say a 
Republican-dominated Legislature put this amendment on the ballot to 
ensure that Rick Scott, if re-elected, would be able to make these 
appointments and thus tip the ideological balance of the court.

Down the road, however, the partisan advantage would flip with an 
outgoing Democratic governor and newly elected Republican.

Let's disregard partisanship and look at the simple principle.

If a judicial vacancy is created on the first day of a new governor's 
term, it is only fair to let the newly elected person make that 
appointment, not the outgoing governor.

To those who say there would be up to a 120-day wait for a newly 
appointed justice, there already are provisions to appoint qualified 
people temporarily, such as retired justices.

When an amendment looks shady, it probably is.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom