Amendment #1 - Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards

September 13, 2024

Vote411 Voter Guide– Florida Proposed Amendments

General Election – November 5th, 2024

Florida Amendment 1- Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards


Ballot Language:

Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election and to specify that the amendment only applies to elections held on or after the November 2026 general election. However, partisan primary elections may occur before the 2026 general election for purposes of nominating political party candidates to that office for placement on the 2026 general election ballot.


Synopsis:

School board elections in Florida are currently non-partisan. That means all registered voters, no matter their party affiliation, can currently vote for the school board candidate of their choice in the primary and the general elections. In addition, candidates for school board races, like candidates for all nonpartisan offices, are currently prohibited from campaigning based on party affiliation.


Florida had partisan school board elections until 1998 when voters approved Amendment 11 with 64% of the vote. Amendment 11 prohibited partisan primaries and party labels in school board elections. Amendment 11 was referred to the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. Florida is one of 41 states with state laws providing for nonpartisan school board elections. 

 

Proposed Amendment 1 was referred to the ballot by a majority vote in the 2023 Legislature. (Senate: 29 Yes to 11 No; House: 79 Yes to 34 No).

 

Proposed Amendment 1 would require members of district school boards to be elected in partisan elections, with their political party designated on the ballot.

 

Since Florida is a “closed” primary state, only voters registered with a political party can vote for candidates in their party’s primary election. Voters registered as No Party Affiliation (NPA) cannot, by law, vote in any partisan primary election. Other local offices such as county commissioners, supervisor of elections, state attorneys and public defenders are currently partisan races, while judges and many city councils are nonpartisan races. Closed partisan primaries exclude nearly 30% of registered voters who are classified as NPAs, nearly 4 million voters.


Opponents to this amendment, including Florida Tax Watch and the League of Women Voters of Florida, argue that partisan school board races would exclude NPAs from voting in primaries and increase political polarization. Schools should not be politicized and everyone should be welcome at schools regardless of party affiliation. 


Supporters of the amendment, including the majority of the Florida Legislature, state that since public education has become polarized through cultural issues reflected in new legislation that school board elections may have already become partisan. Additionally, a candidate’s party affiliation may predict how they will vote on controversial school board issues.

 

A Yes Vote Would...: Change School Board elections to partisan elections beginning in 2026, requiring the candidate’s political party to be designated on the ballot and triggering closed primary elections. 

 

A No Vote Would...: Leave School Board elections as nonpartisan elections with no closed primaries, allowing all voters to vote for any candidate. 

March 2, 2026
Gil Smart (VoteWater) and Eve Samples (Friends of the Everglades) updated the February 26th Rivers Coalition meeting on how this year’s legislative session in Tallahassee was going as far as environmental issues are concerned. It wasn’t good news. Gil warned us last month: “If last year’s legislative session’s theme was facilitating sprawl, this year’s is sprawl on steroids.” And since the Republican-controlled legislature can pass anything it wants, at this point the only possible changes in the disturbingly-large number of bad bills in the pipeline are tweaks to the bills. With one possible exception. Some North Florida Republican legislators have voiced concerns about the Everglades water management process. South Florida Republicans haven’t yet, but if they notice the desertions they may be persuadable. The bills are HB 701 and SB 1120. Gil’s bottom line: “Right now the worst bills are all the pro-growth bills like ‘Blue Ribbon Projects’; House Bill 299 is on the House floor but Senate Bill 354 still has to clear the Rules Committee this week, and in both cases it would be helpful for people to reach out to our local legislators and tell them to oppose these bills.” The bad news from Tallahassee doesn’t stop there. Florida Forever, the state’s conservation and recreation land acquisition program which is funded by doc stamps, started in 2001 at $300 million/year. Funding was cut to zero during the Great Recession but rebounded to $100 million in 2018-2023 and then came all the way back up to $270 million last year. Alas; this year the Governor requested only $115 million. Even worse, the Senate wants to appropriate just $35 million for Florida Forever. The House’s number: A Big Fat Zero. Meanwhile, Lake Okeechobee hasn’t seen any serious effects from the drought thus far. It’s currently at 12.26 feet, and it would have to drop below 11 feet for 80 days before triggering any real concerns. The main problem with the lake right now Is actually to the west: The Caloosahatchee River needs fresh water, but the low lake level is preventing it from getting enough. At least the drought is giving the St. Lucie Estuary a breather from discharge threats. -- Walter Deemer, LWVMC Rivers Coalition Representative
February 2, 2026
The featured presenter at the January 22nd Rivers Coalition meeting was Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Commander Col. Brandon Bowman. He reported: * The Lake Okeechobee management effort is going well. The lake level is currently a near-ideal 13.01 feet. In addition, following last summer’s Lake Recovery Operation, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (“sea grass”) now covers 20,000 acres of the lake bottom compared with just 3000 acres beforehand. * All stakeholders but one are having their needs met at the present time: The Caloosahatchee River west of the lake isn’t receiving nearly as much fresh water as it needs. * The biggest threat to the St. Lucie Estuary right now isn’t discharges from Lake Okeechobee; it’s polluted runoff flowing into the headwaters of the North Fork. The Corps has several projects underway to address that issue. * The Everglades restoration effort continues moving forward, albeit at a seemingly-glacial pace. To wit: Col. Bowman was happy to announce that the Everglades Agricultural Area projects would be completed five years ahead of schedule – but that still won’t be until the end of 2029. * The big C-44 Reservoir, just north of the St. Lucie Canal in western Martin County, is a key part of the management plan. The reservoir will store runoff and remove phosphorus before discharging the water. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been able to operate at capacity; there’s a seepage issue at one end, and it can only be filled to ten feet compared with its designed fifteen-foot level. The Corps doesn’t think the reservoir will be able to be filled to capacity until 2032. * Finally, Coalition members expressed a great deal of alarm about the Corps’ Engineering Research and Development Center’s plan to develop treatments to remove peroxide and phosphorus from the water. The concern stems from the ERDC’s need to test those treatments, and they have to do the testing in the St. Lucie Canal. There was widespread fear that this could produce harmful results in our canal and our estuary. On the legislative front, Gil Smart, the Friends of the Everglades monitor of the goings-on in Tallahassee, shook his head: “If last year’s legislative session’s theme was facilitating sprawl, this year’s is sprawl on steroids.” A disturbingly large number of bills have been filed that will allow more and more development projects to be subject only to administrative approval rather than, as now, being required to go through a public review process. If these bills pass they will drastically reduce public input on some very big and impactful development proposals -- and completely eliminate it in some cases. As these and other really bad bills get rammed towards the finish line, you will undoubtably be receiving calls for action from your favorite environmental organization. Keep an eye on your inbox. -- Walter Deemer, LWVMC Rivers Coalition Representative
September 28, 2025
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.