Date Published: April 6, 2008
The Florida Legislature is persistent in efforts to undo or marginalize constitutional amendments that the voters of the state approved in 1998 or thereafter.
For instance, lawmakers have not yet fulfilled the intent of the 2002 amendment requiring high quality pre-kindergarten classes for every 4-year-old in Florida. So far, the Legislature has neglected to ensure that each classroom will be led by a teacher with a bachelor's degree — though this session, SB702 by Sen. Nan Rich and HB741 by Rep. Janet Long would do that.
In another arena, the Senate is attempting to undo a 1998 amendment that reduced the size of the Florida Cabinet by adding, once again, an elected commissioner of education.
In that same joint resolution, the Senate stands ready to undermine another amendment adopted by the people in 2002, the one setting up a Board of Governors for independent oversight of the State University System.
And last week, the House voted to repeal the 1998 provision that requires public financing of campaigns for candidates for statewide office (primarily governor and Cabinet) who agree to campaign spending limits. Supporters of the repeal call public financing "welfare for politicians," but opponents of undoing this amendment, including Common Cause, see it quite another way.
They make the distinction that public financing empowers newcomers who want to challenge incumbents, whose financial advantages are enormous, and also that public financing should help reduce the costs of campaigns.
Though national polls show voters support public financing and spending limits, Florida's provision isn't effective. That's because lawmakers dramatically increased the spending limits, from a more modest $6 million to $20 million.
That's the problem that needs to be addressed, in keeping with a national trend toward more and better public financing systems, not fewer and lesser ones.
No question, Florida voters have become overly zealous about government by amendment, enacting several provisions over the years that have no business being in the constitution — even if they are valid as statutes that can be amended with the times.
Often, voters have chosen the so-called grass-roots petition route because they are frustrated and disappointed with government as usual. When lawmakers begin trying to undo amendments that voters have passed in good faith, however, it only further validates voters' belief that too often politics is about entrenched power rather than public service.
Voters need to be more selective and sparing in their enthusiasm for amendments that aren't strictly about the fundamental duties and responsibilities of government, which do need to be outlined in a constitution.
By the same token, lawmakers would find they're confronted with fewer of them if they weren't quite so certain that voters didn't really mean what they said.
Tallahassee Democrat
April 6, 2008
Source: Tallahassee Democrat |