2006 Florida Amendment 3

2006 Florida Amendment 3 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Florida to increase the vote required for constitutional amendments from a simply majority to a 60% threshold. The ballot measure passed, receiving over 57% of the vote, and the backing of all but 2 of Florida's 67 counties. Following enactment of the amendment, 13 subsequent ballot measures have received 50–60% support, meaning they failed. These include 5 citizen initiated ballot measures and 8 legislatively referred ballot measures.^[2]

In 2002, Florida voters approved Amendment 10, which prohibited confining pregnant pigs in a way which prevented them from turning around freely. While the measure had been strongly favored by the Humane Society as a way to prevent cruelty from occurring to animals, it sparked a strong backlash from the political class in Tallahassee.^[3]

House Joint Resolution 1723 (HJR 1723) placed 2006 Florida Amendment 3 on the ballot. It was introduced on March 17, 2005, by State Rep. David H. Simmons. On April 26, the State House agreed to the resolution in a 86 to 30 vote, with 4 not voting,^[4] and on May 6, the State Senate agreed to it in a 37 to 3 vote, with all voting.^[5] The three opposition votes in the State Senate came from state senators Tony Hill, Les Miller, and Frederica Wilson.^[5]

The measure, which was decided by voters alongside the 2006 Florida elections,^[1] had the following information shown to voters for Amendment 3:^[6]

No. 3

Constitutional Amendment

Article XI, Section 5

Requiring Broader Public Support For Constitutional Amendments Or Revisions

Proposes an amendment to Section 5 of Article XI of the State Constitution to require that any proposed amendment to or revision of the State Constitution, whether proposed by the Legislature, by initiative, or by any other method, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the voters of the state voting on the measure, rather than by a simple majority. This proposed amendment would not change the current requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment imposing a new state tax or fee be approved by at least 2/3 of the voters of the state voting in the election in which such an amendment is considered.

O Yes

O No

State Rep. Alan Hays voted in favor of the amendment, believing that a state constitution should be a "guiding framework document that should not be changed just because of the whim of some group of people who all of a sudden they can muster up a simple majority and go with it." Hays went on to say, "I think the 60% rule is a good rule. If you’re going to change it, change it to 65%."^[7]

State Rep. Bruce Antone voted against the amendment, and, in an interview with the Florida Phoenix in 2024, he reaffirmed his opposition, saying, "I still think it’s a bad idea. At the time, they passed that to make it more difficult because they were just trying to keep these amendments out of the Constitution, but I still think it’s a bad idea that we require 60%."^[7]

65 counties voted in favor, and 2 voted against. The highest level of support came from Gilchrist County, with 71.42% in favor, and the lowest came from Volusia County, with 43.96% in favor.^[8]

The following table details the results by county:^[8]

The amendment changed Section 5 of Article XI of Florida's Constitution as follows:^[a][9]

SECTION 5. Amendment or revision election.—

(a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.

(b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiatives hall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held.

(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.

(d) Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.

(e) Unless otherwise specifically provided for else wherein this constitution, if the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of at least sixty percent of the electors voting on the measure, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.