Requires the Legislature to provide by general law for the provision of an economic impact statement to the public prior to the public voting on an amendment of the Florida Constitution proposed by initiative.

* * *

Beware Amendment 2 on the Nov. 5 ballot. It is not what it appears to be.

On its face, it seems reasonable. It would require a statement of "the probable financial impact" of any constitutional amendment proposed by citizen initiative to be included in the ballot language.

But this amendment isn't simply about providing the voting public with more information. It could be used by legislators as a deterrent to initiatives they don't like, such as the successful 2000 high-speed rail campaign or the current effort to reduce class sizes.

Ambitious amendments can be fiscally irresponsible, but if the Legislature wants to change the citizen initiative process, it should do so directly, not with this backdoor attempt to sway the will of the people.

Lawmakers were in such a hurry to shoot down two proposed amendments this year -- on class size and universal prekindergarten -- that they jumped the gun and passed a law that would have required price tags on those items. But the Florida Supreme Court rightly thwarted that attempt, noting that voters would have to decide the matter by passing or rejecting Amendment 2.

The way the amendment is written, it would apply only to constitutional initiatives by the people of Florida, and not to those proposed by the Legislature. In other words, citizens would be forced to play by one set of rules while lawmakers play by another. Not only is that unfair, but it could open up the amendment to challenge under the U.S. Constitution.

There is nothing wrong with giving voters all of the information they need when deciding a change to the Constitution. But guess who would work up the cost of an amendment? Legislators, and it's not clear we can trust them to play it straight.

Judging by their behavior in the fight over the class size amendment, we cannot. Lawmakers used a questionable accounting method to produce an exaggerated "official" cost of smaller classes, a tactic meant to scare voters rather than to inform them.

And Amendment 2 does not spell out how the Legislature is to come up with this financial information. Lawmakers would determine that procedure later, after it's too late for voters to do anything about it.

Under current law, there is nothing to stop proponents or opponents of an amendment from estimating the cost and using that as part of the campaign. It can be helpful to voters when they get unbiased, accurate financial information on amendments they are deciding. Unfortunately, Amendment 2 fails that test.

The Times recommends a NO vote on Amendment 2.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page