Jackie Mitchell – Ballotpedia News

Florida marijuana initiative has enough signatures to appear on 2024 ballot; state supreme court review pending

In 2024 elections, Ballot measures

June 2, 2023 at 10:22 AM

Smart & Safe Florida, a campaign supporting a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Florida, has collected 967,528 valid signatures, exceeding the 891,523 valid signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in 2024.

State officials confirmed on June 1, 2023, that the campaign had submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot and had met the signature distribution requirement mandating that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the state’s 28 congressional districts.

The initiative would legalize marijuana for adults 21 years old and older. Individuals would be allowed to possess up to three ounces of marijuana (about 85 grams), with up to five grams in the form of concentrate. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized under the initiative to sell marijuana to adults for personal use. The Legislature could provide by state law for the licensure of entities other than existing medical marijuana treatment centers to cultivate and sell marijuana products.

The campaign has raised $38.5 million, all from Trulieve Cannabis Corp., a marijuana business that operates in several states, including Florida. According to campaign reports covering information through April 30, 2023, Smart and Safe Florida had paid $23.07 million to Axiom Strategies and Vanguard Field Strategies for signature gathering.

Across all states with an initiative process, the average cost of a petition drive increased 297% from 2016 to 2022. So far, the cost of this signature drive is 463% more expensive than the average signature drive cost in Florida in 2016. The cost of running a successful initiative signature drive in Florida was $4.1 million in 2016, $4.6 million in 2018, and $6.7 million in 2020. No initiatives qualified for the Florida ballot in 2022. Marijuana legalization initiative campaigns in four states spent between $68,000 and $3.66 million on signature drives for 2022 initiatives.

In 2016, voters in Florida legalized medical marijuana through a ballot initiative, which was approved by a vote of 71.32% in favor and 28.68% opposed.

In Florida, proposed initiatives are reviewed by the state attorney general and state supreme court after proponents collect 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state’s congressional districts (222,898 signatures for 2024 ballot measures). After these preliminary signatures have been collected, the secretary of state must submit the proposal to the Florida Attorney General and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure’s compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure “is facially valid under the United States Constitution.”

The measure qualified for a state supreme court review after collecting 25% of the total required signatures on April 6, 2023. On May 15, 2023, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure. Moody wrote that she believes “the proposed amendment fails to meet the requirements” and that she plans to “present additional argument through briefing at the appropriate time.” Briefings in the case are due by June 12, 2023.

In 2021, Attorney General Ashley Moody argued against a proposed 2022 initiative to legalize marijuana sponsored by Make It Legal Florida. Moody argued that the ballot title was misleading and inaccurately stated that the measure would legalize something that is illegal under federal law.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the measure could not appear on the 2022 ballot. The court wrote, “A constitutional amendment cannot unequivocally ‘permit’ or authorize conduct that is criminalized under federal law. And a ballot summary suggesting otherwise is affirmatively misleading.” Justices Jorge Labarga and Alan Lawson dissented. Lawson said, “Because the ballot summary in this case complies with the constitutional and statutory requirements by which we are to judge ballot summaries, I would apply our precedent and approve this measure for placement on the ballot.”

The ballot language for the proposed 2024 initiative includes a sentence stating, “Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law.”

In Florida, constitutional amendments require a 60% supermajority vote of approval to pass. This requirement was added to the state constitution through voter approval of Amendment 3 in 2006. Since then, nine constitutional amendments (including a 2014 medical marijuana initiative) received a majority of votes in favor but failed to reach the 60% threshold and were therefore defeated.

As of June 1, 2023, 23 states and Washington, D.C., had legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes. In 12 states and D.C., the ballot initiative process was used to legalize marijuana. In two states, the legislature referred a measure to the ballot for voter approval. In nine states, bills to legalize marijuana were enacted into law. The average yes vote was 57.86% and the average no vote was 42.21% with an average margin of victory of 15.65%.

Of the 15 marijuana legalization ballot measures, four received a vote of approval of 60% or higher. The measure with the highest margin of victory was Washington, D.C.’s 2014 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 70.06% to 29.94% for a margin of victory of 40.12%. The measure with the lowest margin of victory was Maine’s 2016 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 50.26% to 49.74% for a margin of victory of 0.52%.

Additional reading:

Marijuana laws and ballot measures in the United States

Louisiana legislature refers two constitutional amendments to October 14 ballot concerning freedom of worship and nonprofit property tax exemptions

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

June 2, 2023 at 10:07 AM

On May 30, 2023, the Louisiana State Legislature gave final approval to two constitutional amendments set to appear on the ballot on Oct. 14, 2023.

One of the amendments, Senate Bill 63, would provide in the state constitution that “the freedom to worship in a church or other place of worship is a fundamental right that is worthy of the highest order of protection.”

Senate Bill 63, sponsored by Sen. Beth Mizell (R), was passed unanimously in the Senate on May 2, 2023. The House passed the bill on May 30, 2023, by a vote of 86-13 with six members absent. All 13 no votes came from House Democrats.

The other amendment, House Bill 46, would prevent a nonprofit organization from receiving a property tax exemption if they own residential property that is in such a state of disrepair that it is dangerous to the public’s health or safety, as determined by the governing authority of the municipality or parish the property is located in.

House Bill 46, sponsored by Rep. Jason Hughes (D), was passed in the House on May 18, 2023, by a vote of 80-18 with seven members absent. The Senate passed the bill on May 30, 2023, in a vote of 37-0 with two members absent.

Last year, the state legislature also referred a measure to the Nov. 18 ballot concerning legislative veto sessions and gubernatorial bill action deadlines.

A total of 56 constitutional amendments appeared on the statewide ballot in Louisiana during odd-numbered years from 1999 through 2021. Of the 56 amendments, 37 (67.27%) were approved and 19 (34.54%) were defeated. An average of five constitutional amendments appeared on the statewide ballot in Louisiana during odd-numbered years.

Additional reading:

Connecticut voters will decide a constitutional amendment to allow no-excuse absentee voting in 2024

By Jackie Mitchell

In 2024 elections, Ballot measures

June 1, 2023 at 9:31 AM

Connecticut voters will decide on a proposed constitutional amendment in 2024 that would allow for no-excuse absentee voting. Connecticut would join 35 other states that allow this method of voting. No-excuse absentee voting is where any voter may request a mail-in ballot. Generally, a voter must first submit an application in order to receive a ballot. The voter may then return the completed ballot by mail or by using a designated deposit site.

Currently, Connecticut voters are eligible to vote absentee in an election if they cannot make it to the polls on election day for one of the following reasons:

*Active military service;

*Absence from town of residence during voting hours;

*Illness or physical disability;

*Religious beliefs precluding secular activity on election day; or

*Performance of duties as an election official at a different polling place during voting hours.

An absentee ballot must be returned either in person by the close of business the day before the election or by mail. If returned by mail, the ballot must be received by the close of polls on election day.

The Connecticut Constitution provides two paths for the legislature to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot, either through a 75% vote in each chamber of the legislature during one legislative session or a simple majority vote (50%+1) in each chamber of the legislature during two legislative sessions.

This amendment was referred over two legislative sessions and was first introduced as House Joint Resolution 58 on Feb. 17, 2021. On May 11, 2021, the House passed HJR 58 with a vote of 104-44, with three members absent or not voting. On June 3, 2021, the Senate approved HJR 58 with a vote of 27-9. The amendment was approved mostly along party lines with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed with twelve Republican legislators joining Democrats in approving the amendment during the 2021 legislative session.

On May 10, 2023, the Connecticut House of Representatives approved the amendment, known as HJR 1 this session, in a vote of 113-38. On May 30, 2023, the state Senate approved the measure in a vote of 26-8. Of the 53 House Republicans, 16 joined Democrats in voting in favor of the amendment. Of the 12 Senate Republicans, three voted in favor of the amendment, including Sen. Tony Hwang. Hwang said, “As we move forward, I wish we had more collaboration of ideas, ideas that make our voting process better, more inclusive, more transparent, more engaged.”

Democratic State Sen. Mae Flexer said, “It would be the next step in the process in allowing all voters in the state of Connecticut to cast a vote via absentee ballot, regardless of the reason.”

State Sen. Rob Sampson (R), who voted against the amendment, said, “We have to be able to trust those votes without question. I have some concerns about trying to move our voting process away from the way it’s been traditionally done where people vote on one specific day in person. In the last election, we saw all campaigns across this state mailing ballot applications like crazy to people, and also sending out companion mail to say, ‘Yes, you can check the box for sickness. You can vote by absentee.’ It was a mess.”

As of 2023, 35 states and Washington, D.C. allowed no-excuse absentee voting, and 15 states required an excuse to vote absentee.

Additional reading:

Voting in Connecticut

Lawsuit filed challenging proposed Colorado property tax ballot measure set for Nov. 2023 election

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

May 19, 2023 at 6:16 PM

Advance Colorado and Englewood City Council member Steven Ward filed a lawsuit on May 15, 2023, in Denver County District Court, challenging the property tax measure recently placed on Colorado’s Nov. 2023 ballot. The lawsuit alleges that the measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which requires ballot measures to concern a single subject, and alleges that the ballot language is misleading.

Senate Bill 303, referred to the 2023 ballot by the Legislature, would make several changes to state property taxes and revenue limits. Among its provisions are the reduction of property tax rates, the retention and spending of state revenues that would otherwise be refunded to residents under the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), the allocation of funds to local governments to compensate for decreased tax revenues, the implementation of a limit on local government property tax revenue, and the establishment of a new cap on state revenue.

Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, argues that the measure contains multiple subjects. Fields stated, “This ballot measure clearly violates the single-subject provision in our Colorado Constitution. We’re talking about TABOR refunds going to education, we’re talking about money going to renters, we’re talking about long-term changes to TABOR formula, and we’re talking about limited property tax relief in the same measure.” Fields also said “On top of that, the ballot language is unclear and misleading. Voters deserve to know that they would be giving up their TABOR tax refunds in exchange for very little property tax relief.”

State Senate President Stephen Fenberg (D) defended the measure. In a statement, Fenberg said, “It’s unfortunate that Republican special interest groups are trying to prevent Coloradans from lowering their property taxes, but we are confident SB23-303 was crafted within the confines of the law, and we look forward to proving its constitutionality so that every Colorado family can enjoy immediate relief while protecting critical funding for services like schools, libraries, and fire departments our communities rely on.”

Three years ago, Colorado voters approved a measure that also made multiple changes to property tax laws. Amendment B repealed the Gallagher Amendment of 1982, which limited the residential and non-residential property tax assessment rates so that residential property taxes equaled 45% of the total share of state property taxes and non-residential property taxes equaled 55% of the total share of state property taxes. The Legislature passed a companion bill, Senate Bill 20-223, which allowed legislators to reduce the assessment rate in state law.

Michael Fields was also an opponent of Amendment B in 2020. In a statement to Ballotpedia, Fields said, “The repeal of the Gallagher Amendment was supposed to make things better, but I opposed it because it would inevitably lead to huge increases in property taxes for Colorado families. That is exactly what we are seeing across the state. The legislature created this problem. They said they would come up with a solution and they didn’t. Now, the governor and legislature want us to give up our TABOR tax refunds for a tiny bit of property tax relief. It’s another bad idea.”

The 2023 measure requires voter approval under TABOR since it would increase state revenue. Since 1992, when TABOR was adopted, through 2022, Colorado voters have decided on 27 statewide ballot measures that would have increased revenue for the state, which required voter approval under TABOR.

Eight measures asked voters if the state could retain revenue as a voter-approved revenue change that would have otherwise been refunded to taxpayers under TABOR;
Five measures asked voters to adopt a new tax;
Two measures asked voters to eliminate a tax exemption (thereby raising state revenue);
One measure asked voters to reduce income tax deduction amounts;
Nine measures asked voters to adopt a tax increase;
One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and new tax; and
One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and eliminate a tax exemption.

Eight (29.6%) of the 27 measures were approved while 19 (70.3%) were defeated.

Additional reading:

Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR)

Colorado voters will be asked in November to make changes to property taxes and tobacco taxes

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

May 10, 2023 at 1:22 PM

The Colorado State Legislature referred two ballot measures concerning taxes and state revenue to the Nov. 2023 ballot before adjourning the legislative session on May 8.

Ballot initiatives on the ballot in Colorado during odd-numbered years are limited to topics concerning taxes or state fiscal matters under TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. This includes proposals for new taxes, tax increases, and changes related to taxes that result in a net gain in tax revenue. When voters approve a measure allowing the state to increase taxes and retain revenue, the estimated revenue is included in the ballot title and ballot information booklet. In some cases, the actual revenue the state receives is higher than the estimate, and thus, is higher than the amount voters initially approved. In this case, the state must ask voters whether the revenue may be retained and spent or refunded.

One measure, Proposition HH, would reduce property tax rates and allow the state to retain and spend revenues that would otherwise be refunded to residents under TABOR. Proposition HH would allocate this revenue to local governments for the purpose of making up lost tax revenues from the property tax rate reduction.

Proposition HH would create a limit on local government property tax revenue unless the district adopts a resolution or ordinance to exceed the limit. This wouldn’t apply to school districts and home-rule cities and counties. In order to exceed the local property tax revenue limit, a district would need to provide notice, conduct public hearings, and hear public testimony. Without following those steps, the local government would be required to refund the revenue above the limit to taxpayers. Annual growth in property tax revenue could not exceed the rate of inflation in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood Consumer Price Index.

The measure would make other changes to property tax law and create a Proposition HH Cap on state revenue, similar to the Proposition C cap, which authorized the state to permanently retain and spend revenue up to a cap, referred to as the Referendum C cap (equaling FY 2007-08 revenues adjusted by inflation plus population growth), beginning in FY 2010-11.

Voters will also decide on a measure that would ask voters to allow the state to retain and spend revenue the state received above the estimated revenue generated from increased taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and nicotine products from Proposition EE. Otherwise, the state would refund $23.65 million to distributors and wholesalers and reduce the tobacco tax rate by 11.53%.

Since 1992, when TABOR was adopted, through 2022, Colorado voters have decided on 27 statewide ballot measures that would have increased revenue for the state, which required voter approval under TABOR.

Eight measures asked voters if the state could retain revenue as a voter-approved revenue change that would have otherwise been refunded to taxpayers under TABOR;
Five measures asked voters to adopt a new tax;
Two measures asked voters to eliminate a tax exemption (thereby raising state revenue);
One measure asked voters to reduce income tax deduction amounts;
Nine measures asked voters to adopt a tax increase;
One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and new tax; and
One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and eliminate a tax exemption.

Eight (29.6%) of the 27 measures were approved while 19 (70.3%) were defeated.

The state Legislature also approved a constitutional amendment, which will appear on the ballot in 2024, to create an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board and create rules for the judicial discipline process.

Additional reading:

California parcel tax measures have an approval rate of 62% during odd-numbered years; in 2023, 89% have been approved so far

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures, Local

May 10, 2023 at 10:25 AM

From 2011 to 2021, voters decided 216 parcel tax-related ballot measures in California during odd-numbered year elections. Voters approved 133 (61.57%) and rejected 83 (38.43%). Through April, voters have decided on nine parcel tax ballot measures in California in 2023. Eight (88.89%) were approved, and one (11.11%) was defeated. This approval rate is higher than the average for odd-numbered years from 2011 to 2021.

On average, 36 parcel tax-related measures appeared on ballots in California during an odd-numbered year.

Parcel taxes are a form of special property tax, which must be paid by the owners of parcels, or units, of real estate. However, unlike standard property taxes, which are based on the value of the property, a parcel tax is an assessment based on the characteristics of the parcel. These assessments can include taxing a parcel based on square footage or by dwelling unit, or the tax may be a flat rate per parcel.

Parcel taxes can be imposed by public school districts and on other local units of government, including cities, counties, and special districts. California is the only state that allows parcel taxes as a method for funding schools.

Of the parcel taxes approved by voters in 2023, South Pasadena Unified School District had the highest parcel tax measure, which asked voters to renew a current parcel tax at a rate of $4,764 per parcel for seven years to provide education funding.

The one parcel tax measure that was defeated by voters would have established a tax based on the square foot of buildings ($0.32 per square foot of homes, $1.42 per square foot for lodging, and other rates) to provide funds to acquire, operate, and maintain the Napa County Fairgrounds.

The measure that had the highest vote of approval was in the Salmon Creek Fire Protection District in Humboldt County, which was approved with 111 (96%) voters in favor and five (4%) opposed. The measure enacted a $75 per year special tax for each parcel to fund the Salmon Creek Volunteer Fire Company.

In 2023, Ballotpedia is covering local ballot measures that appear on the ballot for voters within the 100 largest cities in the U.S., within state capitals, and throughout California. You can review the coverage scope of the local ballot measures project here. Ballotpedia is also covering a selection of election-related and policing-related ballot measures outside of the largest cities.

Additional reading:

Parcel tax elections in California

Colorado voters will be asked in 2023 whether to dedicate $23.65 million in state revenue to preschool programs or refund it to tobacco wholesalers and distributors

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

May 9, 2023 at 10:20 AM

Colorado voters will be asked in Nov. 2023 whether to allow the state to retain revenue above the estimated revenue generated from increased taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and nicotine products established by Proposition EE, which was approved by voters in 2020.

Proposition EE increased cigarette and tobacco product taxes and created a new tax on nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. The 2020 Blue Book (ballot information booklet) estimated $176 million in state revenues to be generated from Proposition EE. Actual revenue from the tax increases exceeded this amount by about $24 million.

The Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — also known as TABOR — requires voter approval of increases to the state’s revenue. Because actual revenues generated by Proposition EE exceeded the estimated revenues set out in Proposition EE as approved by voters in 2020, voter approval is required to allow the state to retain the revenue above the estimated revenue.

The 2023 ballot measure will ask voters to allow the state to retain the revenue above the projected estimates for Proposition EE and dedicate it (in the amount of $23.65 million) to the universal preschool program. If voters reject the measure, the state will refund $23.65 million to tobacco distributors and wholesalers and reduce the tobacco tax rate by 11.53%.

Proposition EE, approved by voters in 2020, was designed to incrementally increase cigarette and tobacco product taxes and create a new tax on nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. Before Proposition EE was adopted, cigarettes were taxed at a statutory rate of 20 cents per pack (one cent per cigarette). Additionally, Amendment 35 of 2004 authorized an additional constitutional tax of 64 cents per pack (3.2 cents per cigarette), for a total state-levied cigarette tax of 84 cents. Proposition EE was designed to incrementally increase the statutory cigarette tax rate to $1.80 per pack by July 2027, thereby increasing the total state-levied cigarette tax to $2.64 per pack. Proposition EE was also designed to set minimum price requirements for cigarettes.

In Colorado, tobacco products (cigars and tobacco designed to be chewed or smoked in a pipe) were taxed at a statutory rate of 20% of the manufacturer’s list price (MLP) and a constitutional rate of 20% of the MLP for a total rate of 40% of the MLP. Proposition EE was designed to incrementally raise the statutory tax rate by 22 percentage points by July 2027 for a new total state-levied tobacco products tax rate of 62% of the MLP.

Prior to Proposition EE, in Colorado, nicotine products such as e-cigarettes were not taxed. Proposition EE created a tax on nicotine products that were set to match the tobacco products tax rates. The rate began at 30% of the MLP in 2021 and was set to increase gradually to 62% of MLP by July 2027.

Proposition EE revenues were set to be dedicated to health and education programs including the following:

Preschool programs cash fund;
State education fund;
Rural schools cash fund;
Housing development grant fund;
Tobacco tax cash fund;
Tobacco education programs fund; and
State general fund.

Voters approved Proposition EE in a vote of 67.56% in favor to 32.44% opposed.

Since 1992, when TABOR was adopted, through 2022, Colorado voters have decided on 27 statewide ballot measures that would have increased revenue for the state, which required voter approval under TABOR.

*Eight measures asked voters if the state could retain revenue as a voter-approved revenue change that would have otherwise been refunded to taxpayers under TABOR;

*Five measures asked voters to adopt a new tax;

*Two measures asked voters to eliminate a tax exemption (thereby raising state revenue);

*One measure asked voters to reduce income tax deduction amounts;

*Nine measures asked voters to adopt a tax increase;

*One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and new tax; and

*One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and eliminate a tax exemption.

Eight (29.6%) of the 27 measures were approved while 19 (70.3%) were defeated.

Additional reading:

Florida could become 24th state to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish

By Jackie Mitchell

In State

May 5, 2023 at 4:33 PM

Florida could become the 24th state to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in 2024 after the Florida State Legislature passed a resolution referring the question to voters.

The resolution would add a 28th section to the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution to say that hunting and fishing are the preferred means for “responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife” and “shall be preserved forever as a public right.” The amendment would not limit the powers of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to regulate hunting and fishing.

Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. Since then, 22 states have adopted constitutional amendments creating a right to hunt and fish beginning with Alabama in 1996. The most recent amendment was on the 2020 ballot in Utah and was approved by 75% of voters. Voters in one state—Arizona—rejected a constitutional amendment in 2010.

The constitutional amendment was introduced into the Florida State Legislature as House Joint Resolution 1157 (HJR 1157) on February 24, 2023. The House approved the amendment on April 25, 2023, by a vote of 116-0. The Senate passed the amendment on April 28, 2023, by a vote of 38-1. The single no vote came from Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D).

State Rep. Lauren Melo (R) said, “Many people don’t realize the economic value fishing and hunting provides our great state, combining just over $15 billion annually. People come from all over the world to catch our tarpon and snapper, and chase our turkeys and ducks. Passing this legislation is a powerful statement that we support and champion our fishing and hunting traditions, and we want to protect (them) for our future.”

Constitutional amendments in Florida must be approved by 60% of voters to pass.

Additional reading:

• Right to hunt and fish constitutional amendments

Florida marijuana legalization initiative has 94% of signatures needed to appear on 2024 ballot

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

May 2, 2023 at 10:02 AM

Smart & Safe Florida, a campaign supporting a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Florida, has collected 786,688 valid signatures, 88% of the 891,523 valid signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in 2024.

The initiative would legalize marijuana for adults 21 years old and older. Individuals would be allowed to possess up to three ounces of marijuana (about 85 grams), with up to five grams in the form of concentrate. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized under the initiative to sell marijuana to adults for personal use. The Florida State Legislature could provide by state law for the licensure of entities other than existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to cultivate and sell marijuana products.

The initiative was cleared for signature gathering on Aug. 23, 2022. Since then, the campaign has collected an average of 23,360 valid signatures each week.

Signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election must be collected from at least half (14) of the state’s 28 congressional districts. So far, the signature distribution requirement has been met in 12 of the districts. The campaign has collected 99.86% of the signatures needed in District 5 from Duval and St. Johns counties and 88.97% of the number needed in District 13 from Pinellas County, and will likely meet the distribution requirement in those districts after the next monthly signature update.

The campaign has raised $30.5 million, all from Trulieve Cannabis Corp., a marijuana business that operates in several states, including Florida. The campaign has spent $27.42 per valid signature collected so far. According to campaign reports covering information through March 31, 2023, Smart and Safe Florida had paid $23.07 million to Axiom Strategies and Vanguard Field Strategies for signature gathering.

Across all states with an initiative process, the average cost of a petition drive increased 297% from 2016 to 2022. So far, the cost of this signature drive is 463% more expensive than the average signature drive cost in Florida in 2016. The cost of running a successful initiative signature drive in Florida was $4.1 million in 2016, $4.6 million in 2018, and $6.7 million in 2020. No initiatives qualified for the Florida ballot in 2022. Marijuana legalization initiative campaigns in four states spent between $68,000 and $3.66 million on signature drives for 2022 initiatives.

In 2016, voters in Florida legalized medical marijuana through a ballot initiative, which was approved by a vote of 71.32% in favor and 28.68% opposed.

In Florida, constitutional amendments require a 60% supermajority vote of approval to pass. This requirement was added to the state constitution through voter approval of Amendment 3 in 2006. Since then, nine constitutional amendments (including a 2014 medical marijuana initiative) received a majority of votes in favor but failed to reach the 60% threshold and were therefore defeated.

As of May 2023, 21 states and Washington, D.C., had legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes. In seven states, bills to legalize marijuana were enacted into law. In 15 states and Washington, D.C., voters approved ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use. The average yes vote was 57.86% and the average no vote was 42.21% with an average margin of victory of 15.65%.

Of the 15 marijuana legalization ballot measures, four received a vote of approval of 60% or higher. The measure with the highest margin of victory was Washington, D.C.’s 2014 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 70.06% to 29.94% for a margin of victory of 40.12%. The measure with the lowest margin of victory was Maine’s 2016 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 50.26% to 49.74% for a margin of victory of 0.52%.

Note: the Florida Division of Elections previously stated that the campaign had submitted 841,130 valid signatures due to an error by one county in reporting signatures to the state. The count posted on the Division of Elections website has since been updated to reflect that the campaign had submitted 786,688 valid signatures as of May 9, 2023.

Florida state legislature approves constitutional amendment to make school board elections partisan

By Jackie Mitchell

In Ballot measures

April 21, 2023 at 9:59 AM

The Florida State Senate gave final approval to House Joint Resolution 31, a constitutional amendment to make school board elections partisan.

School board members in Florida are elected by the voters of the county and serve four-year terms. Currently, voters elect five or more members in a nonpartisan election. Each county makes up a school district, unless two neighboring counties have voted to combine school districts.

The school board controls school property, establishes, organizes, and operates the schools of the district, including establishing schools, adopting enrollment plans, providing for school elimination and consolidation, cooperating with school boards of adjoining districts in maintaining schools, maintaining the school year schedule, and other more specific duties as outlined in Florida statutes.

The Senate voted 29-11 in favor of the bill. All 28 Republican senators voted in favor and 11 of the 12 Democratic senators voted against. Sen. Linda Stewart (D) was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the bill. The Florida House of Representatives approved HJR 31 on March 31 by a vote of 79-34 along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.

Florida has a Republican trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of the governor and both chambers of the state legislature.

State Rep. Spencer Roach (R), the sponsor of the amendment, said, “This is not about, at least for me, advancing the cause of one political party over another. But for me it’s about transparency, and I simply believe that we have an obligation to give voters as much information about a candidate as possible, and let them make a decision about vetting a candidate. I would tell folks, if they truly want to vote for nonpartisan candidates, those candidates in Florida who are NPAs that don’t have a philosophical association with either of the two major parties and they (voters) viewed them as sort of purist NPAs — right now in Florida, the law prevents you from doing that, because you don’t know who that candidate is.”

State Rep. Angie Nixon (D), said, “I believe this bill is not about transparency at all. This bill is about making our school-board elections and our school boards more contentious, more like D.C., which [Republicans] honestly always try to oppose.”

Ballotpedia analyzed state laws concerning partisan school board elections and found that in 41 states and the District of Columbia, state law requires nonpartisan elections for school boards. The law in four states—Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana, and, with some exceptions, Pennsylvania—automatically allows partisan school board elections or party labels to appear on the ballot. These four states have a combined 878 school districts and 7,652 elected school board members. Laws in at least five states—Georgia, Rhode Island, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina—either explicitly allow for partisan or nonpartisan elections or gives local authorities enough control over elections to effectively allow the option. These five states have a combined 554 school districts and 3,342 elected school board members.

To be approved by voters, a 60% vote is required. If approved, the amendment would take effect during the 2026 school board elections.