How Florida Legislature could change the rules for petition-led ballot questions
Opponents say the bill would consolidate more power in the hands of Tallahassee and monied special interests. Proponents say the changes ensure the integrity of the process and keep out-of-state special interests out.
Florida's ballot initiative process, a right guaranteed in the constitution, has long been used by groups to pass measures that have been otherwise stymied by state lawmakers. It's how Florida got a $15 minimum wage, medical marijuana and felon voter restoration.
The process is among the hardest of any of the 24 states that allow citizens to directly amend their laws or constitution. Legislative changes have made the process in Florida harder and costlier in recent years.
HB 1205 would continue that trend, about a dozen public commenters warned during the bill's first committee meeting Thursday.
They pointed to the bill's requirement that sponsors put up a $1 million bond before collecting any petitions, as well as its proposals to increase fines, add new requirements and tighten the window to return petitions.
But Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, the bill sponsor, argued that her proposal was the way to keep the ballot initiative process so that 'only those with a stake in our constitution can change it.'
The legislation comes on the heels of two high-profile failed constitutional amendments heavily opposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Republicans: Amendment 3, which would have allowed for recreational marijuana use, and Amendment 4, which would have protected abortion access and undone the state's six-week abortion ban.
When talking about her motivations for filing the bill, Persons-Mulicka pointed to a state report that alleged widespread fraud in the abortion amendment campaign.
Critics of the state's report accused DeSantis' administration of applying uneven scrutiny toward a campaign he disliked.
Her bill changes the law to require that all petition collectors — both paid workers and volunteers — be Florida residents, citizens and not have certain felony convictions.
Persons-Mulicka's bill would also require that all petitions collected be turned into a supervisor of elections office within 10 days, down from the current 30-day window. Related fines for being late would be increased.
It also would allow fraud related to petitions to be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act.
Brad Ashwell, the Florida director of All Voting is Local, said the bill's proposals would have a 'pretty serious chilling effect' on an ordinary campaign's ability to move forward but could be easily overcome by well-off groups.
'It puts the process more firmly in the hands of those who have the resources, who have the wealth,' Ashwell said.
Rich Templin, political director for the Florida AFL-CIO, said that over the last two decades, Florida's petition process has become cost-prohibitive for grassroots efforts — which he said was the Legislature's design.
'These bills are only filed after something happens at the ballot box that the majority in the Capitol doesn't like,' he said.
Templin said the Legislature began making major changes after a 2004 minimum wage amendment passed. One of those changes required that signatures expire in a shorter time frame.
In order to get the nearly 900,000 needed petitions in a tight window, Templin said campaigns need to rely on paid circulators, rather than volunteers.
'If the petition process is broken, it's bills like this that broke it,' Templin said at Tuesday's committee meeting.
Changes to the petition process are one of DeSantis' priorities for this session. But his proposal, which would effectively dismantle petition circulation as it exists today, is significantly different from Persons-Mulicka's bill.
Persons-Mulicka said that she wanted to balance the integrity of the petition process while still ensuring citizens can petition to amend the constitution.
'That power belongs to the people, and I want to ensure that that power's protected,' she said.
Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, has filed a sweeping election bill in the Senate that mirrors DeSantis' proposals, but the Senate's election committee is planning to put its own not-yet-revealed bill forward.
It's unclear what that bill will include. House Speaker Danny Perez, R-Miami, said Tuesday that he believed the House, Senate and governor were on different pages about how they should approach changes to the petition process. Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton said they are in support of taking action, though.
The Florida Supervisors of Election association is in support of the House bill but wants some changes, said lobbyist David Ramba, including requiring voters themselves to return petitions to elections offices instead of allowing the amendment sponsor to do so.
The proposed House bill would require election supervisors to notify a voter once their petition is verified as valid, and tell the voter they can revoke their petition if it was signed fraudulently.
Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for Amendment 4, said there's no state where the petition process operates the way Ramba suggested.
Brenzel said that some of the bill's suggested fines, including a $500 fine for petitions sent to a different elections supervisor, could be incurred by a campaign for simple paperwork mistakes.
'I really do think it is so sad to see legislation like this that claims to be for the people that really is further alienating people from the process,' Brenzel said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How does the Big Beautiful Bill affect you in NY? What it means for taxes, food stamps
New York Democrats voiced fury as Republicans eked out final approval of a bundle of federal policy changes that are expected to strip hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers of their health coverage and monthly food aid. After an overnight slog of debate and arm-twisting, followed by a nearly nine-hour speech in opposition, the package of tax and spending cuts inched to completion by a four-vote margin in the House on Thursday, July 3. Almost every Republican — including all seven from New York — voted for the "big, beautiful bill" President Donald Trump had demanded they finish by July 4. Every Democrat opposed it. Their leader, Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn, gave the epic denunciation of the bill that held up the vote for much of the day. New York's GOP members celebrated victory on a 940-page bill, touting more popular parts of the package like the continuation of lowered tax rates set in 2017 and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions. 'This bill is a blueprint for how we can govern responsibly: provide real relief, restore security, and rein in out-of-control spending," Rep. Mike Lawler, a Rockland County Republican who's weighing a 2026 run for governor, said in a statement after the 218-214 vote. New York Democrats ripped Lawler and his GOP colleagues for voting on a measure that would implement Medicaid changes and slash funding for food stamps — "They had two chances to stand up to Donald Trump and fight for the people they serve," Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement. "They failed both times, gambling with their constituents' lives to pay for billionaire tax breaks." The bill's passage is sure to ripple through heated battles next year for governor and competitive House seats like Lawler's. Here are a few of the bill's components and how they may affect New Yorkers: For the first time in its 60-year history, the public health program that serves 7 million New Yorkers will come with a work requirement. Medicaid recipients who aren't disabled will now have to file regular reports to show they're working at least 80 hours a month, or else their coverage will be revoked. Some 1.2 million New Yorkers could be taken off Medicaid because of that and other new rules, the Hochul administration estimated in May in response to the initial House bill. Another 224,000 people enrolled in a separate state program called the Essential Plan also may be left without health care due to a new bar on coverage for noncitizens who are lawfully present in the U.S., such as asylum seekers. There's also a big financial impact for New York and its health care system. State officials estimated the House bill would cost the state and its hospitals $13.5 billion a year in lost funding and added expenses. Rural hospitals that are heavily reliant on Medicaid could face deep trouble as a result, with 11 in New York seen as most in danger of closing. In response to those concerns from their own members, Republicans included $50 billion in the Senate bill to help protect rural hospitals from the bill's Medicaid cuts. The bill makes permanent tax cuts enacted in 2017 that were due to expire at the end of this year. That means New Yorkers' income tax rates are unchanged. Republicans have cast the renewal as a tax cut — and accused Democrats of supporting a tax hike — because the rates would have reverted back to where they were if Congress didn't extend them. One big new item: an increase in state and local deductions sought by members from New York and other high-tax states and a key priority for Lawler. The bill hoists to $40,000 the $10,000 limit Republicans set in 2017 as part of their tax cuts. The bill also includes new breaks on taxes for tips, overtime pay and Social Security income. Unlike Medicaid, SNAP already had a work requirement that applied to adults under age 55 that don't have children. The Republican bill extends the same rules to people ages 55-64 and those with children older than 13, and restricts states' ability to grant waivers. The bottom line for New York: adults in some 300,000 households may lose their benefits. The program serves roughly 3 million people in all in New York. Final plea: Food pantry leaders plead with Lawler to save SNAP, other programs to fight hunger As with the Medicaid changes, there is also a fiscal impact for New York. The GOP bill pushes part of the cost of SNAP benefits to the states, which until now have always been fully funded by the federal government. The state share ranges from 5% to 25% and could add as much as $1.9 billion a year to New York's budget. In addition, the bill pushes a greater share of the program's administrative costs to the states, which had been evenly split until now. In New York, that means the state and its counties must shoulder 75% of those expenses instead of 50%. Chris McKenna covers government and politics for The Journal News and USA Today Network. Reach him at cmckenna@ This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: How does the Big Beautiful Bill affect NY residents? What to know
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Will Affect US Housing Market
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which House Republicans narrowly passed on Thursday, is likely to help high-end buyers in the U.S. housing market while doing little for lower-income renters and potential first-time buyers, experts have said. The House passed the sweeping bill, which extends tax cuts and slashes the U.S.'s social security net programs, with a 218-214 vote—with all Democrats voting against it and all but two Republicans supporting it. The bill has been strongly contested over the past few weeks, exposing rifts within the GOP. Its approval marks a significant win for the president, who told reporters on Thursday that the legislation would "make this country into a rocket ship." "This is going to be a great bill for the country," Trump said. The president is expected to sign the bill into law on July 4. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson celebrating with fellow House Republicans during an enrollment ceremony of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July 3. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson celebrating with fellow House Republicans during an enrollment ceremony of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July experts have expressed skepticism that the bill will bring positive changes for everyday Americans. Many economists have denounced the bill, saying it is likely to benefit the wealthiest individuals in the country while stripping poorer families of crucial benefits. "There has never been a single law in U.S. history that has hurt low-income households more, from both the largest Medicaid cuts and the largest SNAP cuts in history," Bobby Kogan, a former top numbers cruncher for the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement shared with Newsweek. He added: "And what's particularly egregious is this bill hurts low-income households while simultaneously bestowing huge tax cuts on the richest Americans. Quite literally, this bill makes the poor poorer while making the rich richer." The bill is also likely to affect the struggling U.S. housing market, which is in the midst of a slowdown as inventory surges while buyers are kept to the sidelines by elevated mortgage rates, sky-high prices, rising costs and growing economic uncertainty. "There are several parts of the bill that could affect real estate and housing markets, but its impact won't be uniform," senior economist Jake Krimmel told Newsweek. "Its overall impact is likely to vary significantly across regions and income groups, depending on local tax burdens, home prices, and how tight supply is," he said. "That's because the bill includes provisions that affect both housing demand and housing supply, and they operate differently in different parts of the country—especially given today's large regional divides in local economic conditions." High-End Buyers, Investors and Professionals to Benefit the Most The tax package passed by Congress includes a provision raising the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000—effectively quadrupling the previous $10,000 limit. For homeowners in certain states and metros, this could mean saving thousands of dollars in annual taxes. Ed Fernandez, the president and CEO of exchange investment company 1031 Crowdfunding, told Newsweek that the measure "would be incredibly productive" and "create a real estate boom again." This change, however, "disproportionately benefits higher-income buyers in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois—regions where housing markets remain tight and prices elevated," Krimmel said. The states with the highest share of properties taxed over $10,000, according to data, are New Jersey (39.9 percent), New York (25.9 percent), Connecticut (19.4 percent), California (19.3 percent), Massachusetts (18.4 percent), New Hampshire (16.3 percent), Illinois (13.7 percent), Texas (12.4 percent) and Rhode Island (9.3 percent). The District of Columbia (15.6 percent) is also included in the top 10. The top 10 metros are San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (47.9 percent); New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York-New Jersey (47.8 percent); San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California (40.9 percent); Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbury, Connecticut (39.3 percent); Kiryas Joel-Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, New York (37.5 percent); Trenton-Princeton, New Jersey (35.8 percent); Nantucket, Massachusetts (35.5 percent); Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas (32.0 percent); Jackson, Wyoming-Idaho (28.7 percent); and Santa Cruz-Watsonville, California (28.1 percent). An additional $30,000 in deductions could amount to about $10,500 in annual tax savings for homeowners in these states and metros, assuming a 35 percent federal marginal tax rate, calculated. The higher SALT deduction cap "may supercharge demand in places where affordability has already been declining and inventory remains below pre-pandemic norms, potentially adding upward pressure to already strained markets," Krimmel said. That means that your average buyer in these already-expensive states and metros might face even higher prices as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. "In the near term, the bill offers meaningful support to higher-income buyers and real estate investors but does less comparatively for lower-income renters and potential first-time buyers, who are still facing the steepest affordability challenges in today's housing market," Krimmel said. A permanent qualified business income deduction that the bill introduces is also likely to give an advantage to real estate investors and professionals, potentially fueling more investment in both residential and commercial property, Krimmel said. While everyday Americans may not benefit from the changes introduced by the new legislation, professionals are thrilled. Abe Schlisselfeld, the senior managing director and national real estate industry leader at CBIZ—a company that provides financial, insurance and advisory services in the U.S. and abroad—told Newsweek that the bill was "a big win for the real estate industry." One of the most attractive provisions for real estate investors in the bill is the return of 100 percent bonus depreciation, he said. "This would allow you to fully deduct the cost of qualifying renovations, property improvements, and certain building components immediately, instead of spreading the deductions out over several years," Schlisselfeld said. "This could be a game changer for your 2025 renovation or development plans," stimulating a significant amount of activity. A special depreciation allowance for qualified production property contained in the bill might also "create an additional tax advantage for investors in logistics, warehousing, or production-related facilities," Schlisselfeld said. Lower-Income Buyers Unlikely to Catch a Break 'Anytime Soon' The bill is also likely to affect the U.S. housing market on the supply side by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and making tweaks to opportunity zone incentives, Krimmel said. These are tools that support affordable housing, community redevelopment and increasing housing supply "where it's so desperately needed," he said. While these measures could help address the national housing shortage—including in rural areas and in lower-income urban neighborhoods—"large-scale supply-side impacts will take time and aren't likely to relieve pressure in high-cost cities anytime soon," Krimmel said. Several sections of the bill also terminate the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit, the Residential Clean Energy Credit, New Energy Efficient Home Credit and the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings. An analysis by the think tank and progressive advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative found that abolishing the New Energy Efficient Home Credit, which incentivized the construction of energy efficient homes and was estimated to spur the construction of 3 million homes in the next few years, would increase the price of new homes. "Now, builders that were expecting the credit will likely pass the cost on to consumers or cancel the construction of new homes altogether, further disrupting the housing supply and increasing costs," the group said. Construction of new homes in the U.S. has already significantly slowed down since the Trump administration's introduction of sweeping tariffs that brought up the cost of crucial material. A surge of for-sale listings in the U.S. market is also discouraging builders from hiking up production.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's megabill will impact health care
The massive tax cut legislation passed by the House and Senate this week will dramatically upend health care in America. The legislation, now on its way to President Trump, was never framed as a health bill, but it will mark the biggest changes to U.S. health policy since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010. The bill's provisions will impact patients, doctors, hospitals, and insurers, as Republicans partially paid for it by cutting more than $1 trillion from federal health programs. The bulk of the cuts are coming from Medicaid. As a result, changes are coming that will affect how people qualify for and enroll in the program that covers more than 70 million low-income and disabled Americans, as well as how they can maintain coverage. 'No matter how often repeated, the magnitude of these reductions — and the number of individuals who will lose health coverage — cannot be simply dismissed as waste, fraud, and abuse,' American Hospital Association president Rick Pollack said in a statement. 'The faces of Medicaid include our children, our disabled, our seniors, our veterans, our neighbors, and friends. The real-life consequences of these reductions will negatively impact access to care for all Americans.' Almost 12 million lower-income Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), blunting the significant coverage gains made under the ACA. The cuts were deep enough to give some Republicans in both chambers pause, but in the end, only two GOP House members and three senators voted against the bill. It passed the Senate 51-50, and the House 218-214. Here's how the bill could impact Americans: By design, the group that would be hit the hardest are people whose income is between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly between $32,150 and $42,760 for a family of four) who gained insurance when their states expanded Medicaid. The most significant change will be a first-ever requirement for adults under age 65 — including low-income parents of children older than 14 — to prove they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month. States will need to develop and launch systems to verify individuals' work status at least every six months, beginning in December 2026. Health experts and advocates warn that a blizzard of red tape and administrative hurdles will strip people of needed health care, even those who would normally be eligible. GOP lawmakers say they are fine with those consequences, even those who have said they oppose cutting Medicaid benefits, because the requirements will only target the 'able-bodied' people who should be working but choose not to. Groups such as the disabled, pregnant women and people who are in prison or rehabilitation centers would be exempt from the requirements. Those people, Republicans say, are the truly needy. But someone who qualifies would need to prove they are exempt, which would require submitting the correct forms and documentation — in the correct order — at the time they apply for Medicaid and after they are already enrolled. Outside of work requirements, the legislation requires states to do an extra eligibility check on Medicaid enrollees starting in 2027. Checking every six months opens the possibility of a person losing coverage mid-year. The bill will also require people with incomes above the poverty line to pay out-of-pocket copays for most Medicaid services, like lab tests or doctor visits. States will be allowed to charge up to 5 percent of a person's income per year, though some Democratic-led states may opt for a smaller amount. Primary care, mental health and substance abuse services are exempted, and prescription drugs would only have a nominal copay. The bill could also limit the number of clinics available to patients who need abortions, even in states where it's legal. It targets Planned Parenthood without explicitly mentioning the organization by banning federal Medicaid funds from going to clinics that offer abortions. Nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers in 24 states across the country are at risk of closure, the organization said. More than 90 percent of those closures would occur in states where abortion is legal. The legislation will make it more difficult for people to sign up for and afford health plans on ACA exchanges. It will limit eligibility for premium subsidies to people living in the U.S. who are not eligible for any other federal insurance program. It will also bar most immigrants and lawful permanent residents from receiving the subsidies. The bill will require real-time verification of eligibility before a person can receive those subsidies to help afford premiums. Currently, anyone who purchases a subsidized plan can begin using it almost immediately. The state or federal government has 90 days to determine eligibility. But under the new bill, people won't have access to cheaper premiums until they are deemed eligible. In addition, people who sign up for ACA coverage during some special enrollment periods will not be eligible for subsidies. The bill will also end automatic reenrollment ahead of the 2028 sign-up period, meaning enrollees will need to update their income, immigration status and other information each year. According to health research group KFF, 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in ACA plans in 2025. The GOP bill could pose a major problem for rural hospitals, and subsequently the patients who rely on them. Changes to state-levied provider taxes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. An analysis of an earlier version introduced in the Senate by the National Rural Health Association and Manatt Health found the legislation generates $58 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next ten years for rural hospitals. The bill that passed includes a five-year, $50 billion rural health relief fund, but provider groups say it's a band-aid compared to the overall cost of the cuts. Hospitals would see a spike in uncompensated care and overcrowding of emergency rooms. 'Millions of Americans will see their health care coverage vanish through burdensome Medicaid work requirements and other eligibility changes throughout the bill. Hospitals across the country have been destabilized, affecting their ability to serve patients and their communities. We are in a crisis,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, a group that represents hospitals serving primarily low-income patients. 'Widespread coverage losses plus weakened hospitals is a recipe for disaster, and patients will pay the price.'
