St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
  • For their own good
    Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Email editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message
 

Forces line up to separate 'simple' from 'majority'

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published September 26, 2006


Here are some of the folks who think it should be harder for the people of Florida to amend our state Constitution:

U.S. Sugar Corp.

BlueCross BlueShield.

Publix.

Lykes Bros. Inc.

The St. Joe Co.

TECO Energy, the Florida Association of Realtors, A. Duda and Sons, and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

On top of those guys, lots of other corporations and prominent individuals in Florida's agribusiness, land development, construction and retail sectors think the same way.

In all, Florida businesses have kicked in the better part of $2-million to persuade you, me and the rest of the voters of Florida to give up some of our power.

They want to talk us into passing Amendment 3 on the November ballot. It would change the rules for future amendments - they would need at least 60 percent of the vote to pass.

Simple majority rule would no longer be good enough in Florida.

Maybe you are thinking:

"Goodness me! If U.S. Sugar, BlueCross, St. Joe and the construction industry all think this is in my best interest, then it must be a fantastic idea."

If you are, then you are a trusting soul, and bless your heart for it. But here's hoping you will not mind if I politely disagree.

Here is the funniest part.

All these business folks, who are using the name "Protect Our Constitution Inc.," say it should be harder for voters to amend the Constitution - because "special interests" have taken over the process.

Special interests!

You know. Like the special interests who had the nerve to ask for a minimum wage in Florida of $6.15 an hour instead of $5.15.

Or the special-interest parents of Florida schoolchildren who demanded smaller class sizes when Tallahassee refused.

Or the special-interest Floridians who took a vote and decided, you know, we are really sick of breathing other people's indoor cigarette smoke.

Or, lastly, those special-interest Floridians behind the ongoing Hometown Democracy movement, who have the idea that voters should be directly in charge of growth decisions in their own communities.

Yep. It is really disgusting that special interests such as working folks, parents and nonsmokers are trying to ram their agendas down the throats of folks like U.S. Sugar and St. Joe.

Puh. Leese.

Listen:

Amendment 3 is about exactly one thing. It is about taking power away from the citizens of Florida, so that it will be harder for the people to trump the Legislature, which is firmly in the pocket of business groups.

At its core, Amendment 3 is based on the "stupid voter" theory.

Voters are too stupid to govern themselves, this theory says. They can't be trusted. The argument is actually quite seductive, since everybody likes to fancy themselves as smarter than the riffraff.

You know the two amendments cited most often to support the "stupid voter" theory? One was designed to keep commercial hog farming from spreading in Florida, the "pregnant pig" amendment. The other required the state to build a high-speed rail system; the voters later repealed it.

Now, come on. Are those two ideas really THAT crazy? Keeping commercial hog farming out of Florida? Building high-speed rail to connect Florida's population centers?

And even if you disagree with them (as I did, voting against both of them), do you really think their passage means we now need to repeal majority rule?

Is that really the way to think? That if YOU don't like the outcome of an election, then that justifies changing the fundamental rules of our society? Sheesh.

Here is an irony. Under our rules, Amendment 3 needs only a simple majority to pass. A simple majority can vote to give away the rights of all future majorities that don't measure up to the magic 60 percent.

But if that's what the majority chooses, then I will respect the decision and defend the majority's right to govern itself - in other words, behaving in a way exactly the opposite of this so-called "Protect Our Constitution" bunch.

[Last modified September 26, 2006, 01:09:11]


Share your thoughts on this story

Comments on this article
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT