The November election in Florida will include 6 proposed amendments to the Florida State Constitution. They only pass if at least 60% of voters vote YES. Here are some brief takes from an economic perspective.
Amendment 1: Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards
Currently, school district boards are locally elected and they do not have a party affiliation listed on the ballot. If passed, the amendment would permit party affiliation to be on the ballot. Partisan primaries would also be introduced, reducing the number of candidates in the general elections. The argument in favor is that party affiliation itself communicates information to voters. Removing that information forces voters to abstain, vote randomly, or to vote based on other information.
An argument against is that, in Florida, only registered party members may vote in primaries. If passed, parties will endorse particular candidates according to the primary results, winnowing the field. I happen to live in a county with an overwhelming republican majority, so the party-endorsed candidate will probably win. The outcome will be that the median republican primary-voter will choose the winning candidate in the primary rather than the median voter during the election. Voting “YES” aggregates information from a smaller set of voters.
I’ll vote NO.
Amendment 2: Right to Fish and Hunt
This amendment is poorly specified. It makes fishing and hunting, including by “traditional means”, a “public right” and the “preferred” means of managing fish and wildlife populations without limiting the authority of the existing Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). What does “preferred” mean? By whom? The FWC administers permits and licenses to “Manage fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people”. Since they will continue to do so, and because hunting is already statutorily protected, it’s not actually clear what this amendment achieves. If the point is to enable more hunting beyond the current mandate of the FWC, then it’s not clearly a good thing. Hunting is already incorporated into preservation practices. This seems like an attempt to push local authorities away from methods that might be better suited to local conditions.
I’ll vote NO.
Amendment 3: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
Currently, medical marijuana is legal and regulated. This amendment would replace the existing regulations and permit private growing, selling, transportation, and use of marijuana for private non-medical purposes (ages 21+). There would be limits, licenses, and estimated tax revenue of $195.6 million. Current market distortions due to prohibition would be reduced with less distortionary taxes. Less trade would occur in illicit markets, increasing tax revenue and strengthening property rights.
I’ll vote YES.
Amendment 4: Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
I’ll tread lightly. In strictly economic terms, this amendment would guarantee access to elective abortion. In strictly economic terms, we can compare the present value of lifetime utility enjoyed when elective abortions are legal vs not. The calculation should include the parents, the public, and the as-of-yet unborn child. The utility accruing to the unborn child can be discounted with a probability of survival, whereas the disutility of pregnancy accruing to the mom is much more certain. A utilitarian dictator would prohibit abortions increasingly as the fetus grows to term and the probability of a successful birth increases. Given the statistical value of a human life often used by policy makers, there is probably not a pregnancy term occurring after implantation at which elective abortions increase the present value of aggregate expected welfare. This amendment doesn’t address the ‘Plan B’ pill, which prevents embryo implantation.
Nobody on either side likes this reasoning.
Importantly, voting against this amendment is not a vote in favor of an abortion ban. That would require an entirely separate blog post since it has the potential to affect both elective and medical abortions, including already dead fetuses and mom’s at greater risk of death. There is much poorly written and applied legislation out there.
I’ll vote NO.
Amendment 5: Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions
Florida has a homestead exemption. This means that property taxes are discounted for your primary owner-occupied residence. In Florida, the exemption deducts $50k from a property’s taxable value, except for school district taxes. The exemption disincentivizes owning multiple properties by increasing relative tax burden on 2nd homes and land-lords. In effect, absentee owners are also taxed more. In Florida, we have *a lot* of absentee owners who reside in other states for most or all of the year. The exemption introduces market distortions. But, given that it exists, it would enable better private planning and economic calculation if it were indexed to some average price level. The exemption would adjust in a relatively predictable way, rather than the current method that’s due to changing and irregular political priorities.
I’ll vote YES.
Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
Currently, candidates for public office can qualify for state funding for political campaigns. Such candidates must agree to spending limits. The current law requires the state to offer and provide this funding if the criteria are met. Generally, such state-funded programs are intended to increase campaign competition. However, most candidates don’t accept the funding and its accompanying strings. The candidates who do accept the funding tend to lose. By a lot. Funding campaigns is not like funding school lunches where even poorly spent dollars still improve the lives of vulnerable populations. Nor is the policy like an invention competition where there are positive innovation and scientific spillovers. Funding political campaigns creates campaign-affiliated interest groups and adds resources to a race where only the relative position matters – not the absolute position. The current policy throws money after a zero-sum game with little to show for it.
I’ll vote YES.
BONUS: Continue Tax-Neutral Flexible Funding for Collier County Public Schools
Finally, there is a county level referendum that would give the school board the authority to move a portion of its capital budget to its operating budget in a budget-neutral manner. That means that there is no impact on taxes. Charter schools would also receive their commensurate share. One could see how short-sighted officials might underinvest in capital projects in order to increase teacher and staff employment or salaries. That might happen. But voters only get a say in the school board election every four years. Giving board members flexibility allows them to respond to priorities with a greater frequency than four years. What’s more, they’re probably better informed about the budget history and future needs than are voters (board members have an incentive to be informed). This amendment simply renews what is current policy.
I’ll vote YES.
Economist Writing Every Day 