No on 3?

[madfloridian]

I getting my ballot ready, and this one looks like a NO to me. Opinions?

http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Prospective_Judicial_Vacancies,_Amendment_3_%282014%29

[Sancho]

1. I voted no...not sure but it's suspious to me.

I haven't heard much about this one.

[lamp_shade]

2. I voted no. See link...

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/times-recommends-no-on-amendment-3-and-packing-the-florida-supreme-court/2200611

[edgineered]

5. tx for the link. i needed simpler reading! nt

[madfloridian]

6. Thanks for the link.

[edgineered]

3. No.

The changes seem to be emphasizing prospective vacancies over current language of vacancies. I've had enough of their little backroom tricks and that sorry excuse for a governor we have.

What did surprise me on this initiative was that the context of it was not the opposite of what is usually stated in the one paragraph summary that most voters do not read beyond.

[d_r]

4. I would say

yes on 1
yes on 2
no on 3

Thank you for that link it is useful for judges too, here is a list appointed by Scott: http://judgepedia.org/Judges_appointed_by_Rick_Scott

[madfloridian]

7. Me, too Yes on first 2 no on 3.

Glad there are not a whole of bunch of amendments like there have been some years

[Sancho]

9. I'm sure you are aware Florida voted to fund education....

and a number of other amendments that the state and governor ignore.

[madfloridian]

10. Scott breaks the rules and sneers about it.

I have been surprised to see that Fox News in Tampa has called them out several times.

Here's an example, some of them have been taken down from You Tube.

[djean111]

8. Yes on 1 and 2, NO on 3.

More power for Rick Scott.

[cntrygrl]

11. IMHO definitely "No".

[Ineeda]

12. When in doubt, I check who's for/against:

In this case, FOR -- Chamber of Congress. (A red flag for sure.)
AGAINST -- League of Women Voters.

I voted no, obviously.

[ChiciB1]

13. My Local Democratic Party Says NO

That's what I've been hearing rom others too.

[hay rick]

14. yes, yes, no

Our county party took an official stand supporting amendment one. We also printed up "palm cards" urging voters to vote yes on 1 and 2 and no on 3. We hand the cards to voters during canvassing and at early voting sites and at the polls.

One and two were put on the ballot by citizen initiative (700,000+ signatures) while three was put on the ballot by the legislature. The practical application of 3 is that it would allow a governor to "prospectively" appoint supreme court justices whose term would start on his successor's inauguration day. Florida has a mandatory retirement age for justices. I believe the 3 most liberal justices are set to "age out" at the end of Rick Scott's second term if he is re-elected. Amendment 3 also allows a scenario in which a one term governor who lost his bid for reelection could appoint justices instead of the winning candidate...