About League

Our Team

Your Government

Voting Info

Take Action

Calendar

Newsletter

Member Services

General Election: November 2nd

Registration Ends: October 4th

Action Alerts

Challenge to Fair Districts Amendments
Clean Air Act
DISCLOSE Act

Challenge to Fair Districts Amendments

Posted 9/1/10

On 31 August the Florida Supreme Court upheld lower-court decisions and tossed proposed constitutional amendments 3, 7 and 9 -- all proposed by the Legislature -- off November's ballot. The court voted 5-2 in each case, with Chief Justice Charles Canaday and Justice Ricky Polston dissenting from the majority three times. Amendment 3 would have offered expanded property-tax breaks to first-time homebuyers and lowered the amount assessments on non-homestead property could go up each year. Amendment 7 -- aka the "poison pill" -- was a legislative answer to Fair Districts amendments 5 and 6, which remain on the ballot. Amendment 9 sought to prohibit federal health-care mandates in Florida. Those three amendments won't appear on the November ballot now.

Posted 7/11/10

On Thursday, July 8th, A Tallahassee judge knocked the Legislature’s proposed constitutional amendment dealing with redistricting standards off the ballot, saying he couldn’t easily understand what it would do so it was unreasonable to expect voters could. Read the details here. This is just a first-round victory, as this initial ruling will doubtless be appealed. The case most likely will be decided in the Florida Supreme Court.

Posted 5/25/10

On Friday, May 20th, the Florida NAACP, Florida League of Women Voters and Democracia Ahora filed suit in Tallahassee, seeking the removal of a misleading ballot amendment, Amendment 7, from the November ballot. This "poison pill" amendment, placed on the ticket by Tallahassee politicians, is a brazen attempt by those in power to continue their absolute control of the redistricting process. Amendment 7 parades as an amendment measure to create "standards" for the legislature to follow when they draw their own district lines and those of congressional districts. But in reality, the legislature's amendment is an attempt to eliminate all rules and give the politicians free reign to draw districts that only serve to protect their own political futures. It is intentionally written to fool voters about its chief purpose and true effect.

Amendment 7 was passed in direct response to the placement of two citizen-initiated amendments on the ballot, FairDistricts Amendments 5 and 6. These two amendments will create real mandatory and enforceable standards for redistricting at the legislative and congressional level. Amendments 5 and 6 will prohibit the current practice of drawing districts to favor an incumbent or political party. By placing Amendment 7 on the ballot, a majority of legislators proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they want to continue to use redistricting as their own, personal political, incumbent protection plan.

"The present system was designed by those 'in power.' So, it would be no surprise that those in power placed Amendment 7 on the ballot to confuse voters to hold onto that power," says former State Comptroller, Bob Milligan. "Our forefathers believed in responsive government and our Constitution says that all political power resides in the people. The legislators want to continue drawing district lines to favor themselves. Their amendment should be off the ballot!" says Nathaniel Reed, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Milligan and Reed are also plaintiffs in the suit.

Posted 5/10/10

Thanks to your efforts, the Fair Districts amendments will appear on the November 2nd ballot next fall, which means Florida citizens will have the opportunity to vote against gerrymandering and for a fair redistricting process after the 2010 Census. Unfortunately our legislators are only too aware of the danger fair redistricting poses to their continued incumbency. In the final hours of the 2010 legislative session, they banded together to insert their own redistricting amendment on the ballot, one which would gut the amendments the people of Florida worked so hard for. They cleverly inserted it as Amendment 7 -- right after the Fair Districts amendments -- hoping that unsuspecting citizens will inadvertently vote for it as well.

In the coming weeks a suit will be filed to challenge the legitimacy of this amendment, whose purpose is to nullify Amendments 5 and 6 -- the very amendments that 1.5 million Florida voters signed petitions to get on the ballot. We wanted to make our own choice in November, but our legislators ignored our wishes and are once again trying to dictate to us from Tallahassee. If Amendment 7 makes it to the ballot and is approved by voters who don't realize what it is, we will be stuck with the redistricting status quo for another decade. Don't let that happen! We will need your help to get the word out to voters about the real purpose behind Amendment 7.

To learn more about the real Fair Districts Amendments, read an analysis prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law. The ballot summaries and full texts of both amendments follow. See if you have any trouble understanding the language our legislature wants to "clarify." Ask your local officials to sign the endorsement for Amendments 5 and 6 and go on record as supporting these important initiatives. Return signed endorsements to your League at the address below, or send them directly to the Florida League at 540 Beverly Court, Tallahassee FL 32301.

AMENDMENT 5: Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting

BALLOT SUMMARY: Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

FULL TEXT: Add a new Section 21 to Article III

Section 21. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

In establishing Legislative district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

AMENDMENT 6: Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting

BALLOT SUMMARY: Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an
incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal
opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be
contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and
where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

FULL TEXT: Add a new section 20 to Article III

Section 20. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Tell your senators to defend the Clean Air Act

Posted 5/19/10

The Senate is expected to vote very soon on an amendment that attacks the Clean Air Act and would block EPA from taking action against climate change. If it passes, this will put public health at risk and jeopardize long-overdue action to cut emissions from the biggest polluters. Just as EPA is finally beginning to use the Clean Air Act to cut dangerous pollution that is causing global climate change, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R - AK) is trying to block that action with a resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 26). This is a critical time to urge your Senators to oppose the weakening of a law with a nearly 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution and protecting human health and the environment.

Take Action today!

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that global warming pollutants are covered by the Clean Air Act, and last May President Obama took action under this ruling by issuing landmark clean vehicle standards that will save consumers money at the gas pump, cut global warming pollution and reduce America's oil dependence. Now, EPA has begun to regulate the pollutants spewing from major power plants. The Murkowski Amendment would block all this progress. Make your voice heard, along with those of other activists around the country. Tell your Senators to protect the Clean Air Act and to vote against Senator Murkowski's resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res 26) or any similar legislation that blocks EPA action, including S. 3072 introduced by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - WV).

Learn more about what the League is doing to support strong action to combat climate change.

The DISCLOSE Act

Posted 5/16/10

Earlier this year the Supreme Court handed down a far-reaching decision in Citizens United v. FEC that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited advertising funds in candidate elections. Making matters worse, the ruling allows this unlimited spending to be done secretly! Fair and clean elections, determined by the votes of American citizens, should be at the center of our democracy. Here are 5 reasons you support legislation to require disclosure of corporate and union electioneering, known as the DISCLOSE Act:

1. Secret money has no place in American democracy.
   Corporations and unions should not be allowed to spend money in elections without full disclosure to the American public. The role of the voter -- not the corporation or organization -- in determining elections must be protected.
2. Corporations and unions should have to stand by their ads.
   When huge sums are spent to urge voters to take a certain action through advertisements, it should be clear who footed the bill. The "stand by your ad" system in elections works for candidates -- we need it in place for corporate America too.
3. Federal bailout money should stay out of electioneering.
   Companies that receive federal bailouts should not be able to spend money in elections. This is a clear conflict of interest that is even more damaging without full disclosure.
4. Coordinated spending should be open spending.
   When a candidate, corporation or union get together to encourage voters to support or oppose a candidate, it should be clear who paid for any advertising or media.
5. Foreign corporations should never have a hand in American elections.
   As it currently stands, Citizens United allows foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money, secretly, on campaign advertising to influence the outcome of elections. A company controlled from outside the United States should not spend huge sums to support or oppose candidates.

The League of Women Voters is strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act. Our elected officials must protect the rights of voters by passing a fair and balanced bill before the 2010 elections to ensure these rights. Your voice matters: Encourage your Senators and Representative to support campaign finance reform today.

Back to top