Editing the Constitution
Florida's constitution is truly an evolving document. Every two years, amendments are proposed and and those that pass muster with Florida voters are edited into the text of the original document rather than just being tacked on at the end.
The current version of our state constitution is full of seamless and not so seamless examples of good, bad and meh amendments that have been incorporated into the constitution over the years. Pregnant pigs, pregnant minors, a minimum wage and fishing nets are just a few of the subjects addressed in the constitution thanks to the amendment process.
There are five ways to put amendments to the Florida constitution on the ballot, but three are rarely used: two seperate commissions that meet every twenty years, and the Constitutional Convention process which must be initiated by the voters.
The two other methods, the legislative and citizen initiative processes, are fairly common and typically produce a bunch of measures for voters to consider every couple of years.
The citizen initiative is a petition gathering process and can sometimes result in popular measures that are maddeningly progressive in the eyes of our conservative GOP Legislature.
The Legislative initiative is typically crafted with the help of lobbyists in back rooms and can be designed with ulterior motives in mind.
Sometimes, especially in the past few cycles, the Legislature has been known to respond to successful citizen initiatives with amendments that aim to change or cancel out completely the citizens' efforts.
In 2000, Two years after Jeb Bush was elected Governor, citizens proposed and passed a High Speed Rail amendment, enshrining the forward thinking concept into the constitution and legally locking the Legislature and Governor into action.
But Bush and the GOP dominated Legislature failed to fund the rail project as they placed their own anti-rail amendment in the ballot in 2004 and they managed to convince the voters to cancel out the previous measure.
Similarly, class size is still being debated. Citizens passed an amendment in 2002 mandating specific teacher to student ratios in public schools. The Legislature has been trying to get it watered down for years, and this year another Legislative initiative is on the ballot which aims to change the way heads are counted in the classrooms, thus weakening the original amendment.
So the pattern is becoming clear: first, the citizens propose an amendment which passes with majority support. Then the politicians respond by seeking to water down or completely do away with the citizen mandate. But just undoing amendments wasn't enough for the Legislature.
Between class size and high speed rail and some other mandates from the voters, including language protecting pregnant pigs from the worst abuses of corporate farming, the Governor and Legislature, as well as the powerful business interests that backed them, were starting to feel a little lack of control. So in 2006, as well as pushing amendments to undo the amendments they didn't like, they managed to get a super majority requirement amendment into the constitution.
That's right: stung by repeated voter demands to address important issues, Florida's leaders talked the voters into making it harder for the voters to speak out. From now on, all amendments to the Florida constitution would require a sixty percent majority to pass.
Which pretty much brings us up to date. As things currently stand, voters this year will have three citizen sponsored initiatives and six legislative initiatives to vote on, several of which are designed to dilute or cancel current or past citizen efforts.
All of which is fodder for several more posts this week. Stay tuned.
This Is Democracy?
Florida’s statewide filing deadline for November races fell on Friday and news reports highlighted a great example of the kind of behavior that disgusts voters who say that they are just fed up with the same old “business as usual” as politicians from both parties took turns abusing a loophole in Florida law that allows for the disenfranchisement of thousands every election season.
Last minute write-in candidates closed primaries between Republicans vying for a state Senate seat and Democrats running for the Hillsborough County Commission.
In the District 3 commission race, incumbent Kevin White will square off against former state Sen. Les Miller and businesswoman Valerie Goddard in the Aug. 24 primary.
The winning Democrat will face Dwight Bolden - a political newcomer who filed to run as a Democrat but qualified as a write-in candidate - in the Nov. 2 election.
"I didn’t have any money or a campaign team, so I went with the non-traditional way," said Bolden, whose name, under election laws, won’t appear on the ballot.
He wasn’t the only unexpected contender to qualify this week for the fall elections.
In the District 12 Senate race, a pair of unknowns qualified as write-in candidates, fueling speculation about whether the two were asked to run to close the primary.
They are Derek Crabb, 30, a Petco store clerk, and Kimberly Renspie, 20, a student at Catawba College in North Carolina.
If they hadn’t filed, all district voters, regardless of party, would have decided the race between former state Rep. Kevin Ambler and Hillsborough County Commissioner Jim Norman in the primary.
The write-in candidates mean that only Republicans can vote in the primary, leaving all other voters with a choice in November of the primary winner and the two write-in candidates whose names won’t appear on the ballot.
So, who is 30-year-old Crabb?
Republican candidate Kevin Ambler wondered the same when he read Crabb's sparse financial information.
"My first thought was, my opponent might want a closed primary, so maybe he recruited this person," he said.
The opponent, County Commission member Jim Norman, is also Republican.
Because no one has filed as a Democrat, the Aug. 24 primary would have been open to all voters.
That is, until Crabb came along as a write-in, listing no political party.
The district comprises northern Hillsborough and central and eastern Pasco counties.
Speaking hurriedly from the pet store, he said he has never held public office.
When asked why he is running, he said, "I don't think I want to comment on that." Pressed for an answer, he said, "Without disclosing too much, I want my voice to be heard." Pressed even more, he added, "I'm trying to lay low right now."
Write-in Candidate Loophole
Florida is a closed primary state. Only voters who are registered as a member of a particular party may participate in that party’s primary election.
In 1998, Florida voters stated their desire for more open and meaningful elections by passing an open primaries amendment that allowed all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in a primary election if the winner of the primary election would be running unopposed in the general.
In other words, if 5 Republicans are running for a State Senate seat and no Democrats are in the race, then every voter in that district should be able to vote in the Republican primary - which is ordinarily only open to registered Republicans - because the primary will effectively decide the winner of the general election.
If only registered Republicans are allowed to vote in the example above, then Democrats and independent voters are disenfranchised along with folks who are registered with minor parties like the Greens or the Tea Party.
Although the intent seemed clear, and eminently fair, the actual language left just a bit of wiggle room.
If all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election, all qualified electors, regardless of party affiliation, may vote in the primary elections for that office.
The amendment passed in 1998. By 2000, a loophole was already being used to close primaries that should have been open to all registered voters. Several legislative races and at least one US House race were affected.
The write in loophole has affected only one US House race, the district 1 Republican primary between incumbent Joe Scarborough and Bob Condon, both of Pensacola. There are 4 write in candidates.
This is how it works: Back to the example cited above with 5 single party candidates in the race. If a candidate will benefit from disenfranchising two thirds of the electorate, all the candidate need do is produce a write-in candidate and VOILA! the primary is closed to all but the party faithful.
A write-in candidate can qualify for the ballot pretty easily.
A write-in candidate is not entitled to have his or her name printed on any ballot; however, a space for the write-in candidate’s name to be written in shall be provided on the general election ballot. A write-in candidate is not required to pay a qualifying fee, election assessment or party assessment, or file petitions(Section 99.061, Fla. Stat.)
And once a write-in candidate is “qualified,” then the general election will be "contested" and the primary is closed.
Of course, many voters thought that this loophole was unfair, and lawsuits have been fought to fix it. Florida courts have sided with the politicians in this fight.
In Lake County, a man who was registered as a Republican declared himself to be a write-in candidate for the Democrats in a county commissioner race. That step prevented 93,000 Democrats, independents and other non-Republicans from casting a ballot in the election.
But Hill said he could not - as the loophole's challengers wanted - make a judgment on a write-in candidate's intentions.
"Nothing in the Constitution authorizes this court or any other court to predict the degree of opposition a candidate will present or to determine whether a candidate's opposition is significant or even realistic," Hill wrote in his ruling.
The average margin of victory in the general election for these primary winners who take on a write-in candidate is 99.8 percent.
A spring study by the Florida Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections showed that, through 2006, a write-in had filed to run and thus "closed" a primary in a state legislative race 38 times since the advisory opinion was issued.
The average margin of victory over those write-in candidates was 99.8 percent. Seven times, write-in candidates did not even vote for themselves. The story is similar for many local races, as well.
Critics say this proves that many write-in candidates are just spoilers. They enter the race with no intention of campaigning, much less winning. They simply want to shut out non-party members from voting. Typically, the dominant party in a county uses the strategy when the other party cannot field a candidate with a chance of success.
Both Parties Do It Routinely
Both Democrats and Republicans have learned to love this loophole and to abuse it routinely.
Aronberg said both parties are guilty. In South Florida, it’s seen more often with Democrats, who are in the majority. Elsewhere in the state, it’s a common Republican practice.
Why won’t it change? "It’s hard to ask politicians who benefit from the system to change the system. This is something that the public a only finds out about every two years,"
That’s Dave Aronberg, one of this year’s Democratic Attorney General candidates. He’s been fighting to close this loophole since it was opened up in 2000. Sometimes it seems like he is the only politician in the state who actually cares about this issue. He’s championed lawsuits challenging the loophole and (From the same article:)
State Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, introduces legislation every year to close the loophole. And every year he loses.
"It’s disgusting. It’s un-American. It’s un-democratic. It’s a manipulation of the process. And it will continue because the politicians use it to protect themselves," he said.
What’s more, it’s easy because the write-in candidate doesn’t pay a fee or collect petition signatures to get on the ballot.
The result, Aronberg said, every election season, the voters lose out. "In a matter of seconds, thousands of voters are disenfranchised."
The pols who abuse this loophole in the Florida Constitution and the write-in candidates who enable them are frequently so pleased with their cleverness that they don’t even try to hide their evil scheme.
Schlein, 60, a Leesburg Republican, said she declared as a write-in candidate in the race to prevent Democrats from voting in the Republican primary, which pitted two-term incumbent Jennifer Hill against challenger Jim Miller.
The loophole is manipulated easily. In 2004, Jean Enright had her mother file as a write-in candidate for the Port of Palm Beach commission seat she ultimately won. Two Pinellas County brothers have raised eyebrows in running - ostensibly against each other - for a seat on that county’s commission.
Democrat Manuel Press qualified as a write-in candidate to replace state Rep. Irving Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, in District 90. Press was on vacation Thursday and could not be reached for comment.
Press and Harvey Arnold, who is running for the seat as a Democrat, belong to the United South County Democratic Club. Arnold, the club’s former president, has received support from local Democrats. Public records show Press’ spouse, Phyllis, another club member, donated $100 to the Arnold campaign.
Arnold denied encouraging Press to qualify as a write-in candidate, though he knew of Press’ plans several weeks ago, he said.
"I’m delighted Press is running so that Republicans won’t vote," he said.
In the race for the House District 86 seat formerly held by Rep. Anne Gannon, D-Delray Beach, homemaker Kathleen Faherty-Ruby of Delray Beach qualified to run as a write-in. A Republican, Faherty- Ruby said she was, paradoxically, running to give Republicans a choice in the election, even though her candidacy shut Republicans out of voting in the primary.
"I wanted to give Republicans a choice of writing in whoever they wanted to in the general election," she said. "Basically, I thought it was the right thing to do."
No one encouraged her to run, the mother of six boys said. She said she doesn’t necessarily want people to vote for her, just whomever they want to write in.
So, if you live in a district with a closed primary and you want to vote for your elected representative, you may have to make a strategic decision to change your party affiliation before the registration deadline on July 26. Then you can vote in the closed primary!
But even that wacky strategy will fail if you live in the area within Hillsborough County where County Commission District 3 and Senate District 12 overlap. In that case you can vote in either the District 3 County Commission race (if you are a registered Democrat) or, for Republicans, the District 12 State Senate race, but not both. Independents wont get to vote in either race.
In Florida, we call this democracy.
Disclaimer: Dave Aronberg is taking on fellow Democrat Dan Gelber for the right to face the Republican nominee for Florida Attorney General in November. I like both Democratic candidates. As of now I am undecided on this race and I will enthusiastically support whichever candidate ultimately prevails. I am writing about the loophole because it is in the news today, not to give props to Dave Aronberg. Having said that, it is impossible to write about this issue without mentioning Aronberg and giving him credit for fighting to fix this mess.
UPDATE: From the comments - Did you notice the Hill-Hill connection? Commissioner Jennifer Hill and Judge Mark Hill are married.
Storms does Bay Area proud
(Note: Yes, this is the post that I promised to put up yesterday. Yes, it is late. For those of you who have been waiting with baited breath, I apologize, and I will fully refund the cost of your subscription upon request.)
Howls of derision from the usual sources are accompanying Ronda Storms' (R – Homophoburbia) testing of the waters for a possible State Senate run. Call me crazy, but I, for one, think it's a great opportunity for the Tampa area.
Look, for the past few years, due to the hard work of Rep. Dennis Baxley, Ocala has been in the legislative limelight as Dennis' wise leadership has led to numerous widely noted initiatives.
It's time for the Bay Area to stand up and send our own Dennis Baxley to Tallahassee. With the experience Ronda has in Hillsborough County's political minor leagues, she should be able to hit the ground ranting and make an immediate impression state wide that will bring our area the widespread recognition that it deserves.
Patriot Baxley chairs the House Education Panel, and one of his top priorities has been to ensure that every classroom in Florida is equipped with a properly sized American flag. Some classrooms were actually displaying non-conforming flags and buying textbooks and computers with funds that could have been used for jingoistic displays. Baxley sponsored a bill that put an end to those questionable practices.
He also led the charge for the state to save poor Terri Schiavo's productive and meaningful life. Some people, such as Terri's evil husband, felt that Terri's stated wish to die should she ever find herself absent a functioning brain should be honored. Baxley knew better, and sponsored a bill explicitly designed to derail our society's 'culture of death.'
Speaking of death, Dennis' best known effort might be the 'Cracker Git Yer Gun' law which allows a citizen to legally shoot criminals and other brown skinned types who may seem to be a threat. This law was way overdue and replaces the much weaker castle doctrine. The castle doctrine is for pussies.
Baxley is also actively involved in an effort to reign in liberal college professors and protect vulnerable young fascists from having to engage in thought while attending institutions of higher education. See, those liberal professors abuse the young republicans by basing grades on evidence that students have absorbed and retained a portion of the brainwashing reeducation that is common on our communist infested campuses. Baxley knows that this is an unfair abuse of power on the part of the professors.
These are but a few examples of the work that Baxley has done, all of which reflects back on his home district of Ocala.
Based on her local performance to date, our own Ronda, should she find herself in Tallahassee, could easily jump right in and make a splash in the Senate, bringing some much needed notice to our area.
Ronda wisely micromanages public library decisions, and provided the spark that gained Tampa national recognition as the area which is morally strong enough to stand up against the homosexual agenda.
Ronda is leading the fight against nudity. As a conservative, she knows that any government which allows its citizens to practice freedom of speech by gallivanting around all nekkid is not exercising enough control.
And, much like our glorious President, Ronda recently broke the law and violated people's civil liberties in order to protect us all from severe threats. In Ronda's case, she had the moral strength to interfere with the opening of a bikini bar – an establishment that fully intended to employ scantily clad sexually loose harpies to trick good Christian men into consuming mass quantities of alcohol.
I could go on and on listing Ronda's numerous accomplishments, but her good works are just too numerous to fully document. Suffice it to say the Ronda is ready for the big leagues, and if elected, she's sure to garner tons of state and national publicity for Tampa and Hillsborough County.
So, run, Ronda, run! Let's show those hicks in Tallahassee what Tampa is made of!
Jeb! and GOP simply hate democracy
The Republicans are all about suppressing voter turnout and driving their own partisans to the polls. They don't give a shit about democracy – it's all about winning and holding on to power .
Early voting proved to be so popular in its first test in Florida last year that election supervisors wanted to expand the hours and add more locations.
But the Republican-controlled Legislature rejected both requests, and on Monday Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law limiting the hours of early voting and confining it to election offices, city halls and libraries.
The new law limits early voting to no more than eight hours a day, changing the old law that allowed early voting at least eight hours a day. Early voting also cannot be held more than eight hours on any weekend, and it must end the Sunday before the election.
Legislators defended the eight-hour limit as a way to bring uniformity to a new way of voting. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to suppress turnout in Democrat-leaning counties with working-class people who can't leave work to vote during the day, such as in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
The changes would apply to the 2006 elections, when voters will choose a governor and U.S. senator.
Elections officials in four diverse Florida counties reacted with disappointment.
"It is going to be a little bit more limiting," said Lori Hudson, deputy elections administrator for Pinellas County. "We have to decide what are the eight hours that are going to be best for serving the citizens."
A year ago, Pinellas offered early voting sites for 10 hours a day, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Miami-Dade, the state's largest county, offered early voting in 12-hour sessions from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., to allow people to vote before or after work.
"Early voting was extremely popular here, and we wanted to give people the flexibility to vote when they wanted to," said Seth Kaplan of Miami-Dade's elections department. "It's the law, and we'll comply."
Hillsborough County Elections Supervisor Buddy Johnson took a different tack from his colleagues and praised the early voting law as a positive step.
"There is a desire among everybody to be more consistent among the counties," Johnson said, echoing the sentiment of the bill's sponsors. "My own personal view is that early voting in Florida is still new and some caution moving forward is good."
Buddy Johnson is a partisan shill.
FL GOP joins rush to silence independent voices
Citizens beware: it doesn't matter if you're right – if you fail to toe the line, you're wrong .
Lawmakers quietly eliminated a state office that was meant to review Florida education programs because the office was too often critical of state policy, critics of the move say.
Gov. Jeb Bush pushed for the elimination of the Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement, and governor's office officials and House Republicans said it was because other officials could do the council's job.
Asked about the office's elimination, Bush said this week, "I think they should be given a proper burial."
The council was set up in 1980 by Gov. Bob Graham to evaluate college and university programs. Its duties were expanded in 2001.
The council recently pushed for a more costly prekindergarten program than state leaders approved and recommended spending more money on other programs to create new doctors instead of allowing universities to open new medical schools.
......Rep. Loranne Ausley, D-Tallahassee, criticized the move.
"This is a very dangerous path when you start eliminating the only objective, independent research arm that is there to give you objective analysis," Ausley said.
CEPRI was a citizen board which seems to have agreed with about as many of Jeb!'s programs as they disagreed with – they were neither strident critics nor cheerleaders, and their refusal to support 100 percent of Jeb!'s agenda seems to have cost them their existence.
There is no compromising with zealots. They will take the smallest victories and turn them into precedents and toeholds and continue to claw and scrape until they get everything that they want. Then they'll decide they need more.
Which leads us to the nuclear option. A power grab that seeks to silence the minority. Attempts to reach a compromise are ongoing and misguided.
If it goes down this way, it's a huge loss for the Democrats. They will have put a bunch of extremists on the federal bench, and only preserved the right to filibuster in "extreme circumstances" and more importantly, only through the 109th Congress. All of the Supreme Court justices except perhaps Rehnquist can hold out until 2007 - and then the Republicans will make the same move to end the filibuster they are making now and we'll be back at ground zero.
......Sometimes it's better to just roll the dice. So everyone, whichever side you are on, call your senators and tell them, No Retreat, No Surrender.
Call your senators and call key GOP senators as well. This is important.
When I was a kid, I remember reading about how democracies ended. What surprised me was how often it was a peaceful takeover. Fascists took power in many places not through force, but through rigged elections, broken rules, and consolidation of power, all hidden behind flags and God and promises of glory.
Today, the fanatics who have seized the GOP are beginning their attempt to flagrantly defy a half-dozen Senate rules which have existed for generations in order to install federal judges more interested in ideology than legal precedent.
......If you haven't already... if you live in RI, ME, OH, SC, NE, AZ, AK, OR, PA, or VA, some of your Senators might be the last best hope to hold the line against this "nuclear option" and unprecedented seizure of Senate power.
......Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
(202) 224-2921Susan Collins, Maine
(202) 224-2523Mike Dewine, Ohio
(202) 224-2315Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
(202) 224-5972Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
(202) 224-4224John McCain, Arizona
(202) 224-2235Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
(202) 224-6665Gordon Smith, Oregon
(202) 224-3753Olympia Snowe, Maine
(202) 224-5344Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
(202) 224-4254John Sununu, New Hampshire
(202) 224-2841John Warner, Virginia
(202) 224-2023
And while you're dialing the phone, peruse The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods ... (click the link for all the details I cut out)
Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term
Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"
Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate
Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees
Beaten child wins right to beg at Leg’s door
Marissa Amora might have her medical expenses covered by the state, but the stingy GOP led Legislature will have to give its stamp of approval first.
A jury just decided that Florida's Department of Children and Families was 75 percent responsible for allowing the near-fatal beating that put Marissa in the hospital at the age of 2 that has resulted in lifelong injuries and the need for expensive ongoing care.
The Palm Beach Post has the story of the verdict.
On Tuesday, however, a Palm Beach County jury spoke for her, saying the Department of Children and Families was negligent and must pay the bulk of a $35.1 million award for the 6-year-old's suffering and future care.
Marissa's adoptive parents, Ric and Dawn Amora, had sued DCF in order to make the state pay her medical expenses for life.
"The truth has come out," said a teary-eyed Dawn Amora as she pushed Marissa, who uses a wheelchair, out of Circuit Judge Jonathan Gerber's courtroom after the verdict. "They can't hide behind lies anymore."
The six-member jury found that DCF was 75 percent responsible for the negligence that left Marissa brain-damaged. Jurors also found that 20 percent of the blame rests with Miami Children's Hospital, which released Marissa despite DCF's ongoing investigation, and 5 percent went to her biological mother, Guerlande Pierre-Louis.
Authorities believe Pierre-Louis' boyfriend, Joubert Culceus, beat Marissa, formerly named Moesha Sylencieux.
Foreman James Nelson said the three-week trial was emotional for the three men and three women on the jury. But he said the evidence showed DCF failed to protect Marissa.
"She needs to be taken care of," Nelson said.
Attorney Stephen Radford, who represented DCF, left the courtroom without comment. During the trial, he placed blame on Miami Children's Hospital officials, saying they failed to recognize the case as abuse.
Mary Jones, a DCF spokeswoman, said the agency had not determined its next step.
"The circumstances surrounding the child's condition are heartbreaking," Jones said. "But we are reviewing the court's decision, and we're considering our legal options."
......Despite her court victory, Marissa's representatives now must take her case to the legislature. Under Florida law, DCF can pay damages only up to $100,000 per person and $200,000 per incident. Any payout above those figures requires legislative approval.
Marissa's attorney, Joe Nusbaum, said the burden once again is on the state. Florida lawmakers should adhere to the jury's decision, he said.
"Now we look to the state of Florida to do the right thing," Nusbaum said.
Yeah, the Legislature is known for doing the right thing when it comes to compensating individuals for personal suffering brought about through the actions (or inaction) of the state.
It was shameful that the Legislature did not provide for compensating Wilton Dedge or extending the Oct. 1 deadline for DNA testing that could free other innocent people from prison. Both failures were deliberate. It is impossible to understand or excuse the cruel indifference of the House leadership to the fact that Dedge and his parents deserve, at a minimum, to recoup legal expenses and the income he was denied during the 22 years he was incarcerated for someone else's crime.
The Senate passed a wonderfully fair and creative bill by Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Winter Garden, that would have allowed Dedge, and the others everyone knows will follow, to submit documented claims to the attorney general for lost income, legal expenses, and other quantifiable costs. The House did not consider it, voting instead to set up what Webster called a "glorified claims bill" procedure that would make Dedge wait another year for money that might not be awarded even then.
Webster said Dedge "deserves compensation now." He and the Senate decided correctly, however, that it was better to pass nothing than the House's devious scheme. Dedge's lawyers will now sue the state under the same legal theory underlying Webster's bill: that a person's liberty is no less valuable than land taken for a highway or orange trees destroyed to stop citrus canker. The state pays promptly for those because property rights are not subject to the arcane concept of sovereign immunity. When Dedge's law suit is filed, Attorney General Charlie Crist should concede the analogy.
Legislature 2005: We got off easy this time
Legislature 2005: Citizens win most rounds in clash over constitution
Floridians will be glad to know that the Legislature wasn't able to "protect" the state constitution as much as some lawmakers wanted.
At this point, only one change will be on the 2006 ballot. Voters will decide whether to require that any proposed amendment get 60 percent of the vote to pass, rather than a majority. Given the intent behind this proposal, voters should reject it. But the outcome could have been much worse.
More from Opinion
• Sound off in the blog
• Columnists
• Editorials/Letters
• Don Wright cartoonsIf the House had been in control, the Legislature essentially would have gutted the power of citizen groups to put amendments on the ballot. The House would have required that citizen initiatives be limited to matters that deal with constitutional issues or basic human rights. The House would have required that any citizen initiative estimated to cost the state at least 0.2 percent of general revenue — about $52 million in the 2005-06 budget — receive two-thirds approval. (The Legislature, of course, would calculate the cost.) The House would have placed crippling and probably unconstitutional limits on the petition drives by which citizen initiatives reach the ballot. That last one was misnamed the Voter Protection Act. Gov. Bush likely would have signed them all.
Tart reform: Florida fights floozies
Moving to consolidate their growing control over the bodies of women, Florida lawmakers passed a well publicized anti-abortion parental notification bill, but they have also voted for lesser known legislation designed to regulate the sexual activities of alimony recipients.
See, the legislature thinks that divorced women should be able to pay their bills or fuck, but absolutely, under no circumstances, should they be allowed to do both. Uh, unless they are engaging in hot lesbian sex, in which case Ed Bullard would even pay to watch...
The Legislature gave final approval Friday to a measure allowing judges to reduce or cut off alimony when a former spouse decides to move in with a new lover.
The hot-button topic provoked heated debate on the heartbreak of divorce, gay relationships, the meaning of love and the morality of living with a member of the opposite sex, .
The Senate approved the measure Friday by a 34-6 vote. The House approved it earlier in the week.
......Gov. Jeb Bush said he's planning to sign the measure.
"I think the concept is really worthy of looking at," Bush said, adding that current policy "basically increases an incentive for people to live together and not get married. That's wrong."
Anyone who wants to keep receiving alimony might want to keep any new relationships casual. A judge would weigh factors such as a shared mailing address and joint property when determining whether to adjust payment. The bill would affect people in "supportive relationships" with one another.
The new restrictions don't apply to someone who moves in with a same-sex partner after a divorce. As currently written, the proposal only applies if the former spouse lives with a member of the opposite sex.
Asked if he was promoting gay relationships, bill sponsor Rep. Ed Bullard, D-Miami, said he didn't think homosexuality would be much of a factor.
"I guess if someone does decide to do that, it's going to be beneficial for them," Bullard said. "But I don't think that's really going to happen."
The proposal drew strong opposition from women in both the House and Senate. Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, the head of the House women's caucus, said the bill doesn't take into account the sacrifices many women make for their marriages.
"When a woman is married for 30 or 40 years and builds up her husband's business, she should be entitled to her contribution to the marriage. That's what alimony is all about," Sobel said.
Rep. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, called the proposal "antiwoman" and scolded members for their cynicism.
Ed Bullard, the bill's sponsor, suggests this site for women who might be tempted to enter into a sinful post-matrimonial heterosexual relationship.
Abortion notification bill passes
State: Proposal for parental notice for abortions goes to Bush
Parents would be told when their minor daughters seek abortions under a bill the Legislature passed Friday.
A 96-14 vote in the House sent the measure (CS-HB 1659) to Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed a similar parental notice bill into law in 1999, only to have it blocked by the courts.
Lawmakers were widely expected to pass a new parental notice law this session after voters approved a constitutional amendment in November to remove the legal obstacles. But the House and Senate developed parental notice bills with significant differences.
The chambers worked out their differences Thursday and the Senate passed the bill 36-3, sending it to the House for its vote Friday.
The bill applies to girls younger than 18 who are not married and don't already have children. Doctors would be required to notify a parent in person or by phone 48 hours before performing an abortion or, if that's not possible, by certified mail 72 hours in advance.
Key tort reform measure fails
Jeb! is not having a good week. He had to follow the law and common sense by allowing a foster kid to have an abortion. His underhanded plan to undo the voter mandated class size amendment failed miserably, and now one of his priority giveaways to business interests has also been shot down.
Senate rejects liability protection
In a stunning defeat for the Florida business lobby, 10 Republican state senators sided with Democrats late Thursday to reject a plan to make it harder for crime victims to collect damages from a business where they are victimized.
With a 24-16 vote, the Senate soundly rejected a House plan that would require a jury to award a level of blame to the criminal, even if he or she hasn't been identified, thereby reducing a business' liability.
The vote came after an hourlong debate in which the Senate's public gallery was filled with dozens of high-powered business lobbyists and trial attorneys sitting on the edge of their seats. Both sides said they had not known how the vote would go.
"I think we just got whooped," Rick McAllister, president and chief executive of the Florida Retail Federation, said moments after the vote. "We thought it was going to be closer."
Just hours earlier, as Gov. Jeb Bush toured the fourth floor of the Capitol, he named major reform to the state's premises liability law, specifically in the area of criminal activity, a top priority. So has House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City.
Opponents said they worried the plan would narrow businesses' obligation to keep visitors safe to the point that they would stop taking security measures.
"They want the bad guy on the verdict because he's not going to be 80 percent responsible, he's going to be found 100 percent responsible," said Sen. Rod Smith, D-Alachua, a onetime prosecutor who is running for governor.
