SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed


Amendment 11: Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes

October 12, 2018 - 6:00am

Ballot Language: Removes discriminatory language related to real property rights. Removes obsolete language repealed by voters. Deletes provision that amendment of a criminal statute will not affect prosecution or penalties for a crime committed before the amendment; retains current provision allowing prosecution of a crime committed before the repeal of a criminal statute.

How The Amendment Reached The Ballot: Constitution Revision Commission

What Your Vote Means: A Yes vote on this measure: (1) repeals a provision that prohibits foreign-born people who are not eligible for citizenship from owning, disposing, or inheriting real property; (2) removes obsolete language regarding high-speed transportation in Florida and; (3) clarifies language regarding the repeal of a criminal statute and its prosecution. A No vote on this measure: (1) keeps the language that prevents foreignborn people who are not eligible for citizenship from owning, disposing, or inheriting real property; (2) retains the high-speed transportation language in the constitution; and (3) maintains the current language regarding criminal statutes.

Pro: This amendment organizes some outdated sections of the Florida Constitution in need of cleaning up. The obsolete language that authorizes a high-speed rail in the state unnecessarily clutters the document. Additionally, the measure removes language that restricts the property rights of certain individuals. This restriction—the Alien Land Law—has been struck down by the courts in a number of other states, and this initiative would preemptively remove the language. Perhaps most importantly, Amendment 11 deletes the language of what is known as the Savings Clause, which states that a repeal of a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of a crime committed before the repeal. Florida is only one of three states that still enforces the Savings Clause. Florida incarcerates at a rate far higher than the national average, and this amendment could alleviate some of those expenditures. Those in favor of repealing the language point out that amending the savings clause means restoring to the legislature a proper power that 49 other state legislatures currently have and use. Leaving the status quo means the legislature can’t, under any circumstances, extend sentencing reforms to anyone who’s already been convicted of a crime. That means a person who committed a crime on June 30, 2014 would spend five times as long in prison as someone who committed the same crime one day later (due to changes in mandatory minimum thresholds), and the legislature is currently powerless to do anything about it. Lastly, proponents of the repeal claim that the measure would correct some of the costs of legislative overreach 2018 found in the criminal justice system. The new policy could free up legislators to makemeaningful reform.

Con: In 2000, voters approved the addition of high-speed rail to the Florida Constitution. Four years later, voters repealed the amendment, which has left the language in limbo ever since. For opponents, the issue in Amendment 11 arises due to bundling. The irrelevant language sits bundled with an unrelated issue: the Savings Clause. Those opposing the repeal of the Savings Clause would argue that there is a need for consistency in criminal sentencing and in the legal system—despite any shortcomings. Once a verdict applies to a criminal, it should not be subject to changes in the law over time. Opponents would contend that the policy change could potentially have a number of unintended consequences, should any subsequent legislative changes not address retroactivity (even though 47 of the 50 states do not have a version of the Savings Clause). The repeal of the Savings Clause could add further confusion to the obstacles standing in the way of criminal justice reform. Opponents assert that Florida incarcerates its citizens at a higher rate than its contemporaries because of the proper enforcement of the law.

This amendment is reprinted with permission from the James Madison Institute's 2018 Florida Constitutional Amendment Guide. Click below to read more from our site!



Bundle votes are unjust.How are you supposed to split vote.SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH THIS SET UP.

The bundling is a problem to me, but what pushes me to NO is the "foreign-born people who are not eligible for citizenship from owning, disposing, or inheriting real property". So passing this would allow foreigners that have been deemed ineligible to be a citizen to still own, sell, or inherit property? No thanks.

Repeal the savings clause so when marijuana is legalized we can let all the people arrested for small offences out and back into contributing to our economy.

so vote yes

Please look up Alien Land Law and read. A yes vote gives rights to Illegal Aliens to own property, etc. My question is: if one is an Illegal Alien and does not have any documentation/ID/eligible to Vote, etc... Then, how is it possible to own something in Florida "legally"????? None of this carries any common sense to me. Opponents: claim it discriminatory. Nope. It's A NO vote for me. *** On the attached issues: High Speed Railway, this issue hasn't even been touched in 4 years, so a NO on that, as well. *** The Savings Clause: "Opponents (Dems?) assert that Florida incarcerates its citizens at a higher rate than its contemporaries because of the "PROPER ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW." Well, what's wrong with that? Nothing. People commit crimes and should serve their sentence accordingly. It's a NO for me.

Another amendment that has multiple topics in it which require their own individual attention. How is it that a law about immigrants owning property is lumped in with the savings clause? Maybe i'm not well versed but thats backwards to me. Just like the vaping and oil drilling.... nothing to do with each other

Exactly ! Keep Issues Separate.

Your right. They have nothing to do with eachother at all. One is there to help pass the's call being sneaky or clever...however on looks at it.

I agree, these should be separate, not together. I agree with getting rid of the old speed

Well put! It’s rediculous!

I thought they wanted us to vote??? This makes it easier to to say, forget it! Each issue deserves it’s own answer! It is improper to answer yes or no to two or or more issues in one amendment. When there is opposition with one! This is legislation at it’s best! God help us all!

I feel very skeptical about the language and bundling of constitutional amendments and revisions. This is not fair voting.

I agree with the author I too have struggled a great deal it's not been easy. For instance one thing I just recently gotten into trading Emini S&P through Emini S&P Trading Secret and I'm doing well but it's not as easy as I thought, lol. But we have to work at it and not give up if it's our dream right? That's what I think; just go for your dream!

Is this saying that if we vote yes that it will make it to where someone, like a terrorist, who is not able to become a citizen can buy property here? Many other countries don’t let non-citizens own property. When I lived in Japan, China, and even Taiwan, I couldn’t own property or own 50% or more of a business. Not sure why we should allow someone who doesn’t plan on becoming a citizen be able to own property here.

"Right from Wrong" is easy to understand,... TEACH IT TO YOUR KIDS !

NO, NO, NO, NO ! ! ! (A thousand times NO !)

It's wrong to vote bundle !And if you NO VOTE YOU LOSE EITHER WAY!I'M ANGRY.

The laws should not pile up charges on anyone, for the ones they have already served time for or paid for in fines. For supposedly intelligent congress men and and women that should make sense. Not counting what the system dose to a healthy individual or young adult who happens to mess up. They come out PTSD, some wanting to die, or hanging themselves. these are people, human beings. At times its no more than modern day prison camp where people are not cared about. nor their feelings or the dangers they face, while in in closed with sick minded individuals. not all but too many. Something else needs to happen because ruining a kids life at 17 yrs for putting tag on wrong car is not enough to lose rights or making them felon for all their days. Then piling junk on them, labeling them is totally unfair. Laws I thought were suppose to make the city county a better place for all. Has it just become a squeeze to see what the system can get from the families who are all ready struggling? I don't get it. Where is fair? Officers should be changed and revalued every 6 mos. be made to take on line mental evaluation to see if they are fit to carry out their position. Because not all are fit to be in a position of power nor on police force. Yes, this world is becoming more and more challenging for Law Enforcement I know. But random evaluation should help all concerned. Maybe restore some confidence in general public that the State of Florida dose care. All I know is punishment should fit crime not throw everybody in jail for stupid stuff.

I get what you are saying, but not sure what it has to do with this. It is very true that there are many officers that do their job very incorrectly and allow their emotions to lay down a heavy hand, but at the same time, those criminals that don’t care for anyone and hold no respect for life of others shouldn’t be allowed lesser time. To be honest, I’m not completely sure what this would mean for the overall system. Telling me that 48 other states don’t have this doesn’t mean much to me. I’m hoping that someone can make it a little more clear what this will do for us or to us.

Comments are now closed.



Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.