Pubdate: Sat, 25 Oct 2014
Source: Star-Banner, The (Ocala, FL)
Copyright: 2014 The Star-Banner
Contact:  http://www.starbanner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1533

THE AMENDMENTS

Florida voters are being asked to approve or reject three proposed
amendments to the state constitution. Amendments 1 and 2 were
initiated by citizen petition. The Legislature proposed Amendment 3.

With early voting beginning today, we offer these summaries of our
previously published editorials.

Amendment 1: Yes

Amendment 1 is titled: "Water and Land Conservation." The ballot
summary explains it clearly: "Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to
acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including
wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting
water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades,
and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and
shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and
historic or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues
from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years."

There is a logical nexus between the fund and its revenue, derived in
large part from development that reduces open space, impacts
environmentally sensitive lands, heightens demand for water and
increases pollution. Between 1990 and 2009, Florida allocated at least
$300 million annually to Florida Forever, the state's leading
preservation program. Between 2009 and 2012, no revenue was allocated.
In 2012, the Legislature allocated $8.5 million, this year, $30
million. While the economy has rebounded, funding for preservation and
protection has not.

We recommend voting YES.

Amendment 2: Yes

Amendment 2 is titled "Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical
Conditions." Twenty-three states already allow the use of marijuana
for medical reasons.

Any proposed amendment must clear a high hurdle - review by the state
Supreme Court. The court's opinion: "Rather than allow the open-ended,
broad use of marijuana, these multiple restrictions in the text of the
amendment itself reflect a constitutional scheme that is meant to be
limited in scope regarding the medical use of marijuana to treat
'debilitating medical conditions.'"

The amendment's complete text lists the medical conditions considered
"debilitating" from cancer to AIDS to Crohn's disease, but adds "or
other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use
of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a
patient."

Opponents say this would let physicians recommend marijuana for
patients without "debilitating" conditions, even though the Supreme
Court rejected that argument.

We recommend voting YES.

Amendment 3: No

Amendment 3 would significantly change the way the state replaces
Supreme Court justices and appeals court judges. Under the
merit-retention system, the governor appoints justices and appellate
judges for six-year terms. When the terms end, voters decide whether
the jurists remain on the bench. But they can't qualify for merit
retention if they near the mandated retirement age of 70.

Amendment 3 would create a "prospective vacancy" when a justice or
appellate judge cannot file for merit retention. This "vacancy" would
occur immediately after the general election "for the purpose of
appointing a successor justice or judge."

The amendment would thus create a vacancy before a judgeship is
vacant. Also, it creates the potential that an outgoing governor -
even one defeated at the polls - could fill the "prospective vacancy."

Former Supreme Court Justice Harry Lee Anstead calls Amendment 3 "a
bizarre 'solution' searching for a non-existent problem."

We agree and recommend voting NO.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard