This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
Chugging right along… next one…
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 10
ARTICLE XI, SECTION 5
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE
Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require the sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposed by citizen initiative to file the initiative petition with the Secretary of State by February 1 of the year of a general election in order to have the measure submitted to the electors for approval or rejection at the following November’s general election, and to require the Florida Supreme Court to render an advisory opinion addressing the validity of an initiative petition by April 1 of the year in which the amendment is to be submitted to the electors.
And the full text… Um… OK, this one is best described by a before and after… It wishes to change Article IV Section 10 from:
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously.
to
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion no later than April 1 of the year in which the initiative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI
and it changes Article X Section 5 from
Amendment or revision election.–
(a)Â Â A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, initiative petition or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b)Â Â The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(c)Â Â Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(d)Â Â If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
which they want to change to…
Amendment or revision election.–
(a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiative shall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held.
(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(d) Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(e) If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
Finally! A proposed constitutional amendment that actually addresses structural questions!!!
On this one I actually spent a little time looking at the pro and con websites. Looks like this will place a specific date on when the petitions have to be submitted in order to get on the ballot (which is earlier than the current date) and will also put limits on when the courts must provide an opinion on those proposals.
According to the people against this, it will make it more difficult to get proposals on the ballot. According to the people for it, it will give more time to educate the people on the ballot issues and for public debate.
Given the nature of most of the proposals I have seen on this ballot, I think both of these things are good things. Thus…
My vote: YES
OK, that last one finished up Page 2 of my sample ballot. Now time for Page 1! Still going backwards from the end of course. Next is:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, SECTION 26
THE MEDICAL LIABILITY CLAIMANT’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.
And the full text…
Section 1. Article I, Section 26 is created to read “Claimant’s right to fair compensation.” In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.
Section 2. This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by the voters.
OK. First, the negotiation of how to split fees between a client and their lawyer should be between the client and laywer, and should be a point of negotiation between them, and a point of competition between lawyers attempting to get the client’s business. Government has no business mandating who those arrangements should or should not be.
Second, of course, as could be easily guessed by my opinions on the other proposed amendments, something like this has no business in a constitution.
My vote: NO
It is now election day (UTC). Less than 11 hours until polls open here in Florida. Time to really chug through the ballot. There are 26 more things left to decide on. Urgh! Well, better get at it. Here is the next one:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 19
AUTHORIZES MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY VOTERS TO APPROVE SLOT MACHINES IN PARAMUTUEL FACILITIES
Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to hold referenda on whether to authorize slot machines in existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before effective date of this amendment. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide. Requires implementing legislation.
This amendment alone has no fiscal impact on government. If slot machines are authorized in Miami-Dade or Broward counties, governmental costs associated with additional gambling will increase by an unknown amount and local sales tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million to $8 million annually. If the Legislature also chooses to tax slot machine revenues, state tax revenues from Miami-Dade and Broward counties combined would range from $200 million to $500 million annually.
And the full text…
Article X, Florida Constitution, is hereby amended to add the following as section 19:
SECTION 19. SLOT MACHINES –
(a) After voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the governing bodies of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties each may hold a county-wide referendum in their respective counties on whether to authorize slot machines within existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai-alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before the effective date of this amendment. If the voters of such county approve the referendum question by majority vote, slot machines shall be authorized in such parimutuel facilities. If the voters of such county by majority vote disapprove the referendum question, slot machines shall not be so authorized, and the question shall not be presented in another referendum in that county for at least two years.
(b) In the next regular Legislative session occurring after voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the Legislature shall adopt legislation implementing this section and having an effective date no later than July 1 of the year following voter approval of this amendment. Such legislation shall authorize agency rules for implementation, and may include provisions for the licensure and regulation of slot machines. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide.
(c) If any part of this section is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion or portions shall be severed from the invalid portion and given the fullest possible force and effect.
(d) This amendment shall become effective when approved by vote of the electors of the state.
OK, a state referendum to amend the state constitution to allow for a local referendum on a local issue that only affects a couple of counties??
The gambling should probably be legal. That’s another thing government really has no business outlawing or placing too many regulations on. But that is not relevant here. (At least not to me.)
Now, if it was worded to allow all counties the option to decide gambling issues locally, rather than the narrowly tailored issue in those specific counties, then maybe… then it would at least be a structural issue moving some decision making power from the state to the counties.
But that is not what it is, not at all… As it is… the notion of a referendum to allow a referendum, all on an issue affecting only part of the state… as a perminant addition to the state constitution… is just silly.
My vote: NO
So we’re sitting at the table eating dinner, and Brandy is finishing up cooking the part of the meal she can eat. (Being a vegetarian she couldn’t eat the chicken rice soup Amy and I were having.) I look over and ask Brandy “Is the oven supposed to have a flickering orange glow?”. Brandy’s response “It’s on Fire!!”.
I run past Brandy to grab the fire extinguisher from where we keep it. Then I stand in front of the overn for a few seconds trying to figure out how to use it. I’ve pulled the pin out, but then before squeezing the handle, I saw that the arrow was on the side instead of on top, so I was trying to twist the nozzle to put the arrow on top. (A completely unneeded and impossible step as it turns out.)
Meanwhile, Brandy has grabbed the baking soda, gets in front of me, and puts out the fire by sprikling the baking soda on it. I procees to get all flustered and upset because I didn’t get to use the fire extinguisher and start pouting and jumping up and down. Then I say, well, the pin is out, so I have to use it, and I aim one brief puff at the wall. Everybody jumps back.
Then there is one little glow from inside the oven. Well, maybe. I’m not sure if I really saw it or not. I say “Hey, it still has a spark!!!” and aim the extinguisher at the oven and blast the rest of it…. um… and that entire side of the kitchen. The fire extinguisher crap billows all over the oven, all over the kitchen, and all the surfaces are covered with it, including the rest of dinner.
Oops.
Brandy was not amused. And I was still all upset that she had jumped in front of me and put out the fire instead of letting me do it. (Even though she was quicker and had a better way.) And of course by the time I actually used the extinguisher, the fire was actually out. So heated words were exchanged.
Dinner was ruined. The whole kitchen and all of the stuff in it needed to be cleaned. It was really all my fault and I had no excuse. After a few minutes once Brandy was upset I realized of course that I was completely at fault and in the wrong. I apologized extensively, but she won’t let me help clean the kitchen (cause I will do it wrong). And she is all sad… and hungry since I ruined her dinner. Which she had worked on for hours and was really looking forward to.
Oops. Sorry Brandy. :-(
|
|