While the constitutional amendments on recreational cannabis and abortion rights both received strong support on Election Day, each drawing 57% approval, they both failed to become law because of the 60% required threshold for passage, one of the toughest such requirements in the nation.
As advocates consider what it will take to get both measures over that figure one day, a question surfaced Tuesday night: Why did the state even create such a high standard? The culprit is not, as some might assume, the GOP-controlled Legislature, but Florida voters, who approved the higher threshold via a 2006 state constitutional amendment.
That came after the Legislature voted on a resolution to put the measure on the ballot in 2005.
“I remember when that passed,” said Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, who supported the measure at the time when he was serving in the state Senate. “It was a reaction to the pregnant pigs and how easy it was to keep putting things in the Constitution.”
In 2002 Florida voters had approved Amendment 10, which prohibited confinement of pregnant pigs as a way that prevented them from turning around freely. The measure was strongly supported by the Humane Society as a way to prevent cruelty to animals. However it provoked a fiery backlash among the political class in Tallahassee.
“The way that the language was written, it sounded like it was cruelty to animals and you can only have 75 words in a constitutional amendment,” recalls former Tampa Democratic Senate Majority Leader Les Miller, one of only three members of the Senate to oppose the resolution.
The pregnant pig’s amendment still has resonance. In an op-ed by Florida Chamber of Commerce CEO Mark Wilson last month, he invoked it in advocating for the public to reject this year’s Amendment 3, which would have legalized adult use of recreational cannabis.
“Just like pregnant pigs had no place in our state constitution decades ago, legalizing drugs should not be rammed into the constitution for the profit of a few,” Wilson wrote in the Tallahassee Democrat.
The Florida House approved the measure, 86-30. One of those “no” votes came from Central Florida Democratic Rep. Bruce Antone.
“I still think it’s a bad idea,” he told the Phoenix Wednesday. “At the time, they passed that to make it more difficult because they were just trying to keep these amendments out of the Constitution, but I still think it’s a bad idea that we require 60%.”
Among those who voted “yes” was then-Republican House member Alan Hays, now supervisor of elections in Lake County. He says a state constitution should be a “guiding framework document that should not be changed just because of the whim of some group of people who all of a sudden they can muster up a simple majority and go with it.”
“I think the 60% rule is a good rule,” he said, adding, “If you’re going to change it, change it to 65%.”
66.67%
Republicans in the House in recent years have attempted to go even higher with that, proposing raising the threshold to 66.67% for passage.
“If I had been in the Legislature I would have voted for it at that time,” Hays said.
While that proposal has moved through committees in the Legislature in recent years, it’s never made it to the floor for a final vote. However, with Gov. Ron DeSantis going full out in denouncing amendments 3 and 4 this year, some former lawmakers suspect he may attempt to persuade lawmakers to act during the 2025 session.
“Now you have it at 60% and you want to take it higher because you didn’t like the amendments dealing with abortion or the amendment dealing with weed?” asks Miller.
“I hope — I know I’m wrong — because the Legislature is still controlled by Republicans and he’s a Republican. He’s going to want to do that, and they’re going to do and probably get it on the ballot again, just like they did trying to make school board races partisan,” he added, referring to Amendment 1 on this year’s ballot, which went down to defeat on Tuesday.
Aronberg did feel in 2005 that the threshold had to rise above 50%, “because it was too easy to put stuff in and we were worried you have a special interest with a big bankroll, and they could put in anything in the Constitution and the way that everything was passing.”
“This was motivated to protect our sacred document and the people of our state,” he says. “But now it just seems very undemocratic.”
Disclaimer
The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
The South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service.
In no event shall the South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice.
The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components
This article originally appeared here and was republished with permission.
