Florida's Amendment 9 - What the heck?

Florida just passed Amendment 9. The banning of offshore drilling AND indoor vaping.

Why the heck were those 2 on the same amendment?

Because offshore drilling is very unpopular and was a guaranteed vote, so a special interest group took advantage of that to easily get their issue pushed through.

Oil & nicotine - both addictive substances?

I was pissed. They had like four related amendments all seperate, and then those two unrelated issues put together. Stupid political games.

I’m at least somewhat opposed to both of those things, and I still would have voted NO on that amendment, just on procedural grounds.

Hmmm…(drums fingers on desktop)…OH! I KNOW! They’re both potentially bad for the environment and health hazards? (Hey, I’m trying.)

That’s the actual rationale given in the OP’s link.


I read an article that said that the amendment was put on the ballot by a state constitution reform committee, and they put multiple topics together in amendments that they propose.

Yup, here’s the full explanation.

Meeting every 20 years, the CRC is tasked with coming up with new constitutional amendments, which—upon approval by the body—go straight to the voters, no questions asked.

Not wanting to waste this rare opportunity, this year’s CRC initially drafted some 20 amendments to place on the ballot. When concerns arose that this might confuse or fatigue voters, the CRC decided to condense these 20 initiatives into seven even more confusing measures.

In addition to vaping and oil drilling, Florida voters were asked to decide on ballot questions that combined issues like death benefits for military spouses and state university funding (Amendment 7), as well as highspeed rail, retroactivity for statutorily reduced criminal penalties, and the ability of foreign residents to own property (Amendment 11).

I think that would not be allowed in California. We’re famous for our many ballot propositions, but they are each restricted to a single topic.

I guess it’s a taste of what law makers need to deal with

No, it’s a case of what lawmakers do.