Amendment 4 is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to the Florida Constitution.
It requires a taxpayer-funded referendum for all changes to local government comprehensive land-use plans.
My sentiment is with their supporters who argue against "gridlocked roads, dwindling water supplies and Florida's disappearing beauty ... the devastating consequences of Florida politicians' habit of rubber-stamping speculative plan changes."
I'm inclined to be a bit more caustic by suggesting that — given the opportunity — developers would pave over the entire state for a buck.
That being said, I would argue against this initiative or any form of "direct democracy" as a solution to perceived legislative failures. My view is that we have to learn how to elect the right people at all legislative levels — city, county, state and federal. (We don't do that well, so term limits would go a long way to protect ourselves from our consistently poor choices.)
Citizen initiatives are usually driven by a vocal, minority special interest with enough PAC money to get their vote out. It often carries the day because the bewildered, poorly informed voter is incapable of making informed choices about the issues.
A Florida State University law review article expressed my concerns well: "The prospect of numerous and continual amendments threatens the sanctity of the Constitution.
Florida should establish a statutory initiative process to preserve the integrity of the Constitution ..."
Well, Florida now has five ways to amend the Constitution; three are statutory and two involve citizen initiatives.
I would stick with indirect statutory methods with Supreme Court oversight (sadly, you can't trust the legislature either) and repeal the citizen initiatives.
Justice Gerald Kogan of the Florida Supreme Court — to make the point — submitted the following five-word citizen's amendment: "The legislature is hereby abolished."
Given the mood of the average Florida voter, it would probably get 60 percent of the vote and pass, but it would throw the state into total chaos. (How about, "County Commissions are hereby abolished?")
An interesting juxtaposition of two-amendment processes is Amendment 8, which is legislatively referred and would change the current maximum class size to school-wide "average" class size to "overrule" the classroom cap established by citizen initiative in 2002.
Florida's economy tanked and the money isn't there, so the legislature had to come up with a solution to revert to the old system.
The initiative system originated in South Dakota in 1898. It is now in use in 24 states, and as one might suspect, was a signature political footprint of the controversial Progressive era which is in vogue again. (You can't trust the legislature, so give the power directly to the voters.) Florida adopted the citizen initiative in 1968.
Note this process can only be used at the state level because our Founders, with their infinite wisdom, gave all legislative power to the legislative branch in Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be invested in a Congress of the United States..."
Even the Constitution itself was not ratified by direct vote, but rather through state conventions elected by the voters. (Article VII) The Founders were firm believers in a representative form of democracy — a republic — not a direct democracy.
I would be the first to admit that our Founders made no provisions to protect the voter from their own ignorance; but direct democracy doesn't guarantee voter wisdom either, so I would argue that outcomes could be more catastrophic in a direct democracy.
Citizen initiatives became popular in recent decades with tax limitations, such as Proposition 13 in California, which capped property taxes at assessed value until ownership of the property changed, at which time the tax base shot up to market value for the new owners.
This resulted in some weird tax differentials between neighbors. Direct democracy at work. But then the legislature figured out other ways to get tax money — increase income taxes.
Colorado has a more reasonable approach with "tax and expenditure limitations" (TELS) because it restricted legislative spending along with taxes. Voter approval is required for new taxes. But Colorado is facing a fiscal crisis because voters approved Amendment 23 which increased K-12 education spending on a continuing basis. (Citizen initiatives at work again.)
Amendment 4 is quite different from the usual initiative which usually mandates entitlements to the voter — but with no way to pay for it. This one has a noble goal, but with a long, costly and unknown tail to it. In 2006 there were 6,406 amendments to local plans. All would now require a local referendum for each change.
St. Pete Beach village, a community of only 10,000 souls, is a useful example to study because they adopted a local version of Amendment 4 in 2006. Former Mayor Ward Friszlowski provides voters with valuable insight: "Since the measure was passed, the residents of St. Pete Beach have endured endless lawsuits [$750,000 in legal fees] and seen little progress ... Any proposed change...is thrust onto the ballot.
Public planning has been replaced with political infighting and a parade of unintended consequences has ensued. I can only begin to imagine the kind of chaos Amendment 4 would cause if it were forced onto every community in Florida...600-page plans couldn't easily be condensed into 75-word ballot questions." (St. Pete Beach has since repealed many of their Amendment 4 rules.)
An implausibly diverse coalition of 280 organizations including The Tampa Tribune, the St. Petersburg Times, the Florida AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce oppose this amendment.
The Tribune editorial board said it well, "... It's certainly no way to run a state," and the Times expressed my sad conclusion ... "Replacing an imperfect model with one just as flawed ... isn't the answer."
Our federal government, and state and local governments are increasingly producing bad, costly outcomes, either because we expect too much government and are getting it; or because we are electing the wrong people.
H.L. Mencken was right when he observed, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." Well, direct democracy invariably results in even more unintended consequences and more divisiveness.
The whole point of a representative democracy is that legislators — having all the relevant facts at their disposal — should do a better job of balancing the equities of all the special interests. This is particularly true with local issues.
Their decisions may not please you; but then again, that's why we have elections.
Helping to Stop Admendment 4
Join the conversation
