Besides a slate of national, state and local candidates, November’s ballot is scheduled to have six Florida-wide ballot initiatives along with two Alachua County initiatives and one for city of Gainesville voters.  

However, in late September, two separate groups filed emergency motions in the Eighth Judicial Circuit to stop an Alachua County and the city of Gainesville initiatives—potentially resulting in the striking of those questions from the ballot.  

Here’s a roundup of every ballot initiative, or referendum, Alachua County voters might see in November and what the questions are asking.  

Florida Amendment 1 

Placed on the ballot by the Florida Legislature, Amendment 1 asks whether school board elections should be partisan or nonpartisan—with or without Republican, Democratic or independent candidates.  

Since a successful 1998 ballot measure, school board members have run for office without declaring a political party and party labels don’t appear on the ballot. 

A ‘Yes’ on this amendment means future school board races will have candidates from different political parties and primary elections to select each party’s candidate. 

A ‘No’ on this amendment means no changes to school board elections. 

This amendment is scheduled to begin, if passed, in 2026. This amendment needs 60% of Florida voters to pass.  

Ballot summary: 

“Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards— 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.” 

Florida Amendment 2 

Also placed on the ballot by the Legislature, this amendment enshrines the right to fish and hunt in the Florida Constitution. Florida would join 23 other states that also have a right to hunt and fish in their constitutions.  

A ‘Yes’ vote approves the inclusion of the hunting and fishing language into the state constitution. A ‘No’ vote would prevent the language from joining the constitution.  

This amendment also requires 60% approval by voters. 

Ballot summary: 

“RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT—Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution.”   

Florida Amendment 3 

The first of two citizen-initiated amendments, this amendment would legalize recreational marijuana. In 2016, Florida voted 71% to legalize medical marijuana.  

Florida adults would be allowed to purchase and possess up to three ounces of marijuana for personal consumption.  

A ‘Yes’ vote allows recreational marijuana; a ‘no’ vote would prohibit recreational marijuana.  

Ballot summary: 

“Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise; allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms. Provides effective date.” 

Florida Amendment 4 

Also a citizen-initiated amendment, this amendment would enshrine abortion rights in the Florida Constitution.  

The amendment would allow abortions without penalty or restriction before viability or for safety reasons as determined by a health care provider. The amendment doesn’t change the state’s requirements to notify a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.  

A ‘Yes’ vote allows the new abortion language to be added to the constitution. A ‘No’ vote prevents the new language and keeps the status quo. This amendment requires 60% voter approval.  

Ballot summary: 

“No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.” 

Florida Amendment 5 

Approved by the Legislature, this amendment would give an inflation adjustment to the homestead property tax exemption. 

If passed, the property tax exemption would increase based on inflation, giving homeowners a slightly larger exemption. The adjustment only happens for an increase in inflation.  

A ‘Yes’ vote allows the exemption to increase based on inflation. A ‘No’ vote keeps the homestead property tax exemption the same. 

Ballot summary: 

“Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions that apply solely to levies other than school district levies and for which every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another person legally or naturally dependent upon the owner is eligible. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2025.” 

Florida Amendment 6 

The final state amendment asks whether Florida should continue to publicly fund candidate campaigns for state positions.  

Intended to level the political playing field, public financing provides a set amount of state money that candidates for governor, attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture can use. 

A ‘Yes’ vote would repeal publicly funded campaigns while a ‘No’ vote keeps the status quo with publicly financed campaigns.  

Ballot summary: 

“Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement—Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution which requires public financing for campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.” 

Alachua County’s One Mill for Schools 

The first referendum for all Alachua County voters is the One Mill for Schools initiative.  

If approved, the Alachua County Public Schools would continue to levy an additional one mill tax to support schools. Reporter Glory Reitz has covered what’s included in the one mill budget.  

Voters first approved the extra one mill in 2008 and have supported the initiative in subsequent elections.  

Alachua County’s At-Large Voting Referendum 

The Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted to place this referendum on the ballot. The question is whether Alachua County should select county commissioners based on single-member districts or at-large districts 

At-large districts mean everyone in Alachua County votes for all five seats. While each of the commissioners technically represents a district of the county, they’re voted on by everyone.  

Single-member districts mean everyone in Alachua County votes for the commissioner from their district. So, only District 1 votes for who the District 1 commissioner will be.  

In the past, Alachua County had the at-large system, but in 2022, the Florida Legislature placed a referendum on the ballot asking if voters wanted to keep at-large or switch to single-member districts.  

With 51.5% of the vote, Alachua County decided to switch to single-member districts. However, citing community pushback and misinformation during the 2022 campaign, the BOCC decided to put the question back on the ballot.  

Because of the 2022 vote, the upcoming elections for two BOCC commissioners will be held with the single-member district format. Future election formats may be decided by the outcome of this November referendum.  

In late September, state Sen. Keith Perry, R-Gainesville, and three other Alachua County voters filed an emergency petition to stop the referendum. The petition claims that the BOCC lacks the authority to place the question on the ballot.  

The outcome of that petition will determine whether or not the vote takes place. And if the vote takes place, voters will again decide between single-member districts and at-large districts.  

The ballot question will read as follows: “Shall the five members of the board of county commissioners of Alachua County, Florida, be elected by all electors within the county at large?” 

A ‘Yes’ vote would switch back to the at-large system while a ‘No’ vote would keep the single-member district system voted for in 2022.  

Gainesville’s Utility Referendum 

Following the Florida Legislature’s decision to create the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) Authority, the Gainesville City Commission decided to place a referendum on November’s ballot to ask citizens if they want to erase the charter section that created the GRU Authority.  

Essentially, the referendum would eliminate the GRU Authority and place management control of the utility back beneath the City Commission.  

The GRU Authority has filed an emergency petition and called the referendum illegal.  

If the referendum continues, Gainesville citizens will decide whether or not to keep the GRU Authority. However, GRU customers outside the city will not be able to participate in the referendum.  

The ballot, unless blocked by the emergency petition, would read as follows: 

Title: Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding the City of Gainesville’s Local Public Utilities (Gainesville Regional Utilities) Governance 

Question: “Shall the City of Gainesville Charter be amended to delete Article VII, eliminating the governor-appointed Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority and its appointed administrator that manage, operate and control the City of Gainesville’s local public utilities, and placing that responsibility with the elected City Commission and charter officer; and eliminating limitations on the government services contribution and utility directives, as proposed by Ordinance No. 2024-448?” 

A ‘Yes’ vote would eliminate the GRU Authority, and a ‘No’ vote would keep the GRU Authority.