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

Categories

Calendar

November 2004
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Florida Proposed Amendment No. 4

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

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.