FLORIDA BALLOT QUESTIONS / CONSTITUTIONAL
Currently seven issues representing Amendments to the
Florida Constitution plus an advisory question, are scheduled for a vote on the
November 2nd ballot.
There is a possibility that The Florida Legislature may convene in session
this summer to entertain a prohibition banning oil drilling.
Three additional proposed Amendments had been removed as of the end of July
2010. They were: Florida Property Tax Limit, Amendment 3; Florida
Redistricting, Amendment 7; and The Florida Health Care Freedom,
Amendment 9, which was removed by court order on July 29.*(See
THE REMAINING ACTIVE BALLOT AMENDMENTS:
(I SUPPORT) AMENDMENT # 1. Repeal of public financing
requirement dating to 1988 by which Florida's taxpayers subsidize the
campaigns of candidates for statewide office. In 2006, this cost taxpaters $11.1
million with $3.3 million going to Charlie Cristís gubernatorial
(I SUPPORT) AMENDMENT # 2. Tax break for deployed military
personnel. Under this Amendment, the Legislature will provide a
homestead property tax reduction to military Floridians serving outside the
U.S., depending on time served overseas.
(I OPPOSE) AMENDMENT # 4. Florida Hometown Democracy
which would require voter approval of development proposals that impact local
growth management plans. On its face it sounds like a good idea that "We The
People" would get to vote on every local land-use variation to protect our
resources. But this would require voter approval of all changes to local
comprehensive land-use plans. The cost of these innumerable ballot questions
over the smallest zoning changes would be incredibly expensive to taxpayers,
generally confusingly worded; and the likely outcome would be to shut down local
Florida economic development.
(I POTENTIALLY SUPPORT) AMENDMENTS # 5 and 6. "Redistricting
to thwart partisan advantages." But it depends on the criteria that are
developed by involved entities like FairDistrictsFlorida.org, to: "establish
fairness standards for use in creating legislative and congressional district
boundaries, while protecting minority voting rights." It is alleged that
"The standards would prohibit drawing district lines to favor or disfavor any
incumbent or political party. Districts would have to be compact and utilize
existing political and geographical boundaries."
But letís see how this works out in practice before I give it my final
blessing. If it just turns out to be a democrat swindle to "empower" minorities;
then Iím against it. If it simply & fairly designates obvious "geographic"
boundaries that reflect map-topography ... then I would probably remain in favor
of the proposal.
(I SUPPORT) AMENDMENT # 8. Relaxation of class size
requirements. Would relax existing school class size rules under the
State Constitution. The new proposal increases the maximum number of students
per class using a new calculation formula that would potentially save millions of
dollars and allow class size flexibility.
(I SUPPORT) the Referendum on Deficit Spending. A
requirement that the federal government balance its budget. This is a
non-binding resolution that asks whether voters support a constitutional
Amendment to make the Federal Government balance its budget. The Federal
Congress, unlike Florida, can legally spend more money than it collects or has.
At this point in time "Deficit Spending" has gotten so far out of line that our
debt is about to exceed Gross Domestic Product for the first time since the
1940s! AMERICA IS BROKE, and about to go bankrupt. Our kids will never live to
pay this debt off and dig our country out of the hole that our government has
dug for posterity. We must support this resolution!
The non-binding resolution reads: "In order to stop the uncontrolled growth
of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the federal government,
which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States
Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising
PATRIOTS & FRIENDS: The answer is an emphatic "YES!"
* FAILED AMENDMENT # 9 ~ Forced off the ballot by judicial
fiat! (Thatís why we need to destroy the concept of "Judicial Supremacy ~ Read
my Article on the left regarding "Marbury v. Madison.")
AMENDMENT # 9: Nullification of federal health-care law
This amendment would have prevented any government from requiring that
individuals, employers or health-care providers participate in a particular
health care program. The proposal specifically exempted Medicare and Medicaid
and allowed patients to pay their health-care providers directly while avoiding
Partly, the Amendment stated:
"(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person,
employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system
"(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services
and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for
lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment
for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or
fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACIOUS
WILLIAM ESCOFFERY III,
- CONTACT DATA
- (850) 225-7228
- Postal address
- 265 Country Club Rd., Shalimar, FL 32579
- Electronic mail
- E-Mail: dr.Escoffery@SenateBill.US
- WEB-SITE: http://www.senateBill.us/
- Webmaster: dr.Escoffery@SenateBill.US
Candidate, U.S. SENATE, FL