Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment (2018)

Elections in Florida, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
• Early voting: Oct. 27 - Nov. 3
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Photo ID required
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Attorney General • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Florida Amendment 6
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic State judiciary and Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Commission-referral	Origin Legislative commission
List of Florida measuresFlorida Amendment 1Florida Amendment 2Florida Amendment 3Florida Amendment 4Florida Amendment 5Florida Amendment 6Florida Amendment 7Florida Amendment 9Florida Amendment 10Florida Amendment 11Florida Amendment 12Florida Amendment 13Submit

Florida Amendment 6, the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment, was on the ballot in Florida as a commission referral on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to: add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Florida Constitution; increase the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 years of age; and prohibit state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to: add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Florida Constitution; increase the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 years of age; and prohibit state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits.

Supermajority requirement: A 60 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Amendment 3.

This measure is part of a national effort to enact similar Marsy's Law amendments. Measures concerning Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendments were put on the ballot in six states for 2018 elections. Electors in all six states voted to approve the amendments. Read more about Marsy's Law here »

Election results

Florida Amendment 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,835,950	61.61%
No		3,013,601	38.39%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Florida Supreme Court case

The Florida Supreme Court agreed to take a case in which the Florida Police Benevolent Association (PBA) filed a lawsuit against the City of Tallahassee alleging that the names of police officers involved in shooting incidents should be concealed and that the police officers should be considered victims and that the privacy afforded to victims under Marsy's Law should apply to them. A Leon County judge agreed with the City of Tallahassee in the case and ordered the names to be made public. The PBA appealed the ruling and the First District Court of Appeals reversed Leon County's ruling in April 2021. The City of Tallahassee must submit briefs to the Florida Supreme Court by January 25, 2022.

On November 30, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that neither police officers nor crime victims could not use Marsy's Law to shield their identities. Justice John Couriel, who wrote the opinion, wrote that "Marsy’s Law does not guarantee to a victim the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure," and that identifying individuals by name “communicates nothing about where the individual can be found and bothered."

Overview

What changes to state law did Amendment 6 make?

Amendment 6 made changes to the state’s law regarding the rights of crime victims, the age at which judges are required to retire, and judicial deference.

Changes to the rights of crime victims

The constitutional amendment regarding the rights of crime victims—known as Marsy's Law—provides crime victims, their families, and their lawful representatives with specific rights, including a right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect; a right to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; a right to have the victim's welfare considered when setting bail; a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, among others.

Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for this kind of legislation to increase the rights and privileges of victims. He formed the national organization Marsy's Law for All in 2009. Voters in six states approved ballot measures for Marsy's Law, with the most recent in Ohio. Voters in neighboring Georgia also considered an amendment for a Marsy's Law in 2018.

Changes to the judicial retirement age

Amendment 6 increased the age at which judges are required to retire from 70 to 75.

Before passage of Amendment 6, Florida was one of 18 states with a required retirement age of 70. Seven states had a judicial retirement age of 75. The highest retirement age in the U.S. was 90 in Vermont. However, 19 states did not have a required retirement age for judges.

Changes to the judicial deference

Amendment 6 prohibited state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits.

In the context of state administrative law, deference applies when a state court yields to an agency's interpretation of either a statute that the state legislature instructed the agency to administer or a regulation promulgated by the agency. The Florida Supreme Court, as of 2018, had "shown a substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation" of statutes and rules, according to a Florida CRC Executive Committee analysis.

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) voted 34-3 to place Amendment 6, which is composed of three constitutional amendment proposals, on the ballot for the election. The 37-member commission, which meets every 20 years to propose changes to the Florida Constitution, is unique amongst the states. Florida is the only state with a commission empowered to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot. Republicans, including legislative leaders and Gov. Rick Scott, appointed 33 of the commissioners. Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) also served on the commission. Jorge Labarga, chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, appointed the three remaining members.

As Amendment 6 was a package of three constitutional amendments, voters could not approve or reject some, but not all, of the amendments. Voting “yes” on the ballot measure was a vote to pass the three constitutional amendments. Voting “no” on the ballot measure was a vote to reject the three constitutional amendments.

Who was behind the campaigns for and against Amendment 6?

One committee was registered to support this initiative: Marsy's Law for Florida. The committee received a total of $37.25 million in contributions and had spent $37.19 million. Marsy's Law for All Foundation provided $36.93 million, and Henry Nicholas, the founder of Marsy's Law for All, had contributed the rest.

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered to oppose the measure.

Aftermath

On April 6, 2021, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in favor of the Florida Police Benevolent Association to decide that the identity protection provided under Marsy's Law extend to police officers threatened in use-of-force incidents. Judge Lori S. Rowe wrote, "That the officer acts in self-defense to that threat does not defeat the officer’s status as a crime victim. And thus as a crime victim, such an officer has the right to keep confidential ‘information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim." The union representing law enforcement had filed the lawsuit against the city of Tallahassee.

Measure design

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) bundled three proposed constitutional amendments as one ballot measure: Amendment 6. The proposed constitutional amendments were related to trials, judges, and courts.

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot measure.

Marsy’s Law Amendment: provisions related to crime victims rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victim rights amendment. The measure provided crime victims, their families, and their lawful representatives with the following rights:

• a right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect;
• a right to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse;
• a right to be protected, within reason, from the accused and persons acting on behalf of the accused;
• a right to have the victim's welfare considered when setting bail, including setting pretrial release conditions;
• a right to prevent the disclosure of information that could be used to locate or harass the victim or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim;
• a right to the prompt return of the victim’s property when no longer needed as evidence in the case;
• a right to full and timely restitution from each convicted offender for all losses suffered;
• a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and
• a right to be informed of the constitutional rights afforded to the victim.

The measure also provided crime victims with specific rights when requested, including:

• a right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public proceedings involving the criminal conduct and to be present at proceedings;
• a right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any release or escape of the defendant;
• a right to be heard in public proceedings involving pretrial, other release from legal constraints, plea, sentencing, adjudication, or parole;
• a right to confer with the prosecuting attorneys concerning plea agreements, pretrial diversion programs, release, restitution, sentencing, or other dispositions of the case;
• a right to provide information regarding the impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim to (a) the individual responsible for conducting the presentence investigation and (b) the court;
• a right to receive the presentence report and other reports relevant to the exercise of a victim’s right, except for such portions made confidential;
• a right to be informed of the conviction, sentence, adjudication, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the convicted offender, the scheduled release date of the offender, and the release of or the escape of the offender;
• a right to be informed of all postconviction processes and procedures and to participate in such processes and procedures;
• a right to provide information to the release authority to be considered before a release decision is made and be notified of release decisions;
• a right to be informed of clemency and expungement procedures and to provide information to authorities in these procedures;

The measure defined victim as “a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the crime or delinquent act is committed.”

Judicial Retirement Age Amendment: provisions to increase the judicial retirement age

The measure increased the age at which judges are required to retire from 70 to 75.

Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Interpretation Amendment: provisions prohibiting courts from deferring to government agencies' interpretations of laws

The measure prohibited state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or rule in legal cases. Instead, the measure requires state courts to interpret statutes or rules de novo. To interpret a statute or rule de novo means to interpret a statute or rule without deference to the legal opinions of administrative agencies or previous judgments.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Creates constitutional rights for victims of crime; requires courts to facilitate victims’ rights; authorizes victims to enforce their rights throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes. Requires judges and hearing officers to independently interpret statutes and rules rather than deferring to government agency’s interpretation. Raises mandatory retirement age of state judges from seventy to seventy-five years; deletes authorization for judges to complete term if one-half of term has been served by retirement age.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Florida Constitution

The measure amended Section 16 of Article I and Sections 8 and 21 of Article V of the Florida Constitution and add a new section to Article XII of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 16 of Article I

Rights of Accused and of Victims.—(a) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be furnished a copy of the charges, and shall have the right to have compulsory process for witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the county where the crime was committed. If the county is not known, the indictment or information may charge venue in two or more counties conjunctively and proof that the crime was committed in that area shall be sufficient; but before pleading the accused may elect in which of those counties the trial will take place. Venue for prosecution of crimes committed beyond the boundaries of the state shall be fixed by law.

(b) To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to achieve justice, ensure a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems for crime victims, and ensure that crime victims’ rights and interests are respected and protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than protections afforded to criminal defendants and juvenile delinquents, every victim is entitled to the following rights, beginning at the time of his or her victimization:

(1) The right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity.

(2) The right to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.

(3) The right, within the judicial process, to be reasonably protected from the accused and any person acting on behalf of the accused. However, nothing contained herein is intended to create a special relationship between the crime victim and any law enforcement agency or office absent a special relationship or duty as defined by Florida law.

(4) The right to have the safety and welfare of the victim and the victim’s family considered when setting bail, including setting pretrial release conditions that protect the safety and welfare of the victim and the victim’s family.

(5) The right to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim.

(6) A victim shall have the following specific rights upon request:

a. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at, all public proceedings involving the criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, trial, plea, sentencing, or adjudication, even if the victim will be a witness at the proceeding, notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. A victim shall also be provided reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any release or escape of the defendant or delinquent, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated.

b. The right to be heard in any public proceeding involving pretrial or other release from any form of legal constraint, plea, sentencing, adjudication, or parole, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated.

c. The right to confer with the prosecuting attorney concerning any plea agreements, participation in pretrial diversion programs, release, restitution, sentencing, or any other disposition of the case.

d. The right to provide information regarding the impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim and the victim’s family to the individual responsible for conducting any presentence investigation or compiling any presentence investigation report, and to have any such information considered in any sentencing recommendations submitted to the court.

e. The right to receive a copy of any presentence report, and any other report or record relevant to the exercise of a victim’s right, except for such portions made confidential or exempt by law.

f. The right to be informed of the conviction, sentence, adjudication, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the convicted offender, any scheduled release date of the offender, and the release of or the escape of the offender from custody.

g. The right to be informed of all postconviction processes and procedures, to participate in such processes and procedures, to provide information to the release authority to be considered before any release decision is made, and to be notified of any release decision regarding the offender. The parole or early release authority shall extend the right to be heard to any person harmed by the offender.

h. The right to be informed of clemency and expungement procedures, to provide information to the governor, the court, any clemency board, and other authority in these procedures, and to have that information considered before a clemency or expungement decision is made; and to be notified of such decision in advance of any release of the offender.

(7) The rights of the victim, as provided in subparagraph (6)a., subparagraph (6)b., or subparagraph (6)c., that apply to any first appearance proceeding are satisfied by a reasonable attempt by the appropriate agency to notify the victim and convey the victim’s views to the court.

(8) The right to the prompt return of the victim’s property when no longer needed as evidence in the case.

(9) The right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each convicted offender for all losses suffered, both directly and indirectly, by the victim as a result of the criminal conduct.

(10) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related postjudgment proceedings.

a. The state attorney may file a good faith demand for a speedy trial and the trial court shall hold a calendar call, with notice, within fifteen days of the filing demand, to schedule a trial to commence at a date at least five days but no more than sixty days after the date of the calendar call unless the trial judge enters an order with specific findings of fact justifying a trial date more than sixty days after the calendar call.

b. All state-level appeals and collateral attacks on any judgment must be complete within two years from the date of appeal in non-capital cases and five years in capital cases, unless a court enters an order with specific findings as to why the court was unable to comply with this subparagraph and the circumstances causing the delay. Each year, the chief judge of any district court of appeal or the chief justice of the supreme court shall report on a case-by-case basis to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate all cases where the court entered an order regarding inability to comply with this subparagraph. The legislature may enact legislation to implement this subparagraph.

(11) The right to be informed of these rights, and to be informed that victims can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to their rights. This information shall be made available to the general public and provided to all crime victims in the form of a card, or other means that is intended to effectively advise the victim of their rights under this section.

(c) The victim, the retained attorney of the victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the office of the state attorney upon request of the victim, may assert and seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to a victim by law in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority with jurisdiction over the case, as a matter of right. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request, affording a remedy by due course of law for the violation of any right. The reasons for any decision regarding the disposition of a victim’s right shall be clearly stated on the record.

(d) The granting of these rights enumerated in this section to victims may not be construed to deny or impair any other rights possessed by victims. The provisions of this section apply throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes are self-executing and do not require implementing legislation. This section may not be construed to create any cause of action for damages against the state or a political subdivision of the state, or any officer, employee, or agent of the state or its political subdivisions.

(e) As used in this section, a “victim” is a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the crime or delinquent act is committed. The term “victim” includes the victim’s lawful representative, the parent or guardian of a minor, or the next of kin of a homicide victim, except upon a showing that the interest of such individual would be in actual or potential conflict with the interests of the victim. The term “victim” does not include the accused. The terms “crime” and “criminal” include delinquent acts and conduct.

Victims of crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.

Section 8 of Article V

Eligibility.—No person shall be eligible for office of justice or judge of any court unless the person is an elector of the state and resides in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. No justice or judge shall serve after attaining the age of seventy seventy-five years except upon temporary assignment or to complete a term, one-half of which has been served. No person is eligible for the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of a district court of appeal unless the person is, and has been for the preceding ten years, a member of the bar of Florida. No person is eligible for the office of circuit judge unless the person is, and has been for the preceding five years, a member of the bar of Florida. Unless otherwise provided by general law, no person is eligible for the office of county court judge unless the person is, and has been for the preceding five years, a member of the bar of Florida. Unless otherwise provided by general law, a person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the office of county court judge in a county having a population of 40,000 or less if the person is a member in good standing of the bar of Florida.

Section 21 of Article V

Judicial interpretation of statutes and rules.—In interpreting a state statute or rule, a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action pursuant to general law may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo.

Schedule of Article XII

Eligibility of justices and judges.—The amendment to Section 8 of Article V, which increases the age at which a justice or judge is no longer eligible to serve in judicial office except upon temporary assignment, shall take effect July 1, 2019.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Florida Constitution Revision Commission wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 3, and the FRE is 83. The word count for the ballot title is 5, and the estimated reading time is one second. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 23. The word count for the ballot summary is 74, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Marsy's Law for Florida led the campaign in support of the amendment.

Supporters

• Walton County Sheriff Michael A. Adkinson Jr.
• Orange County sheriff and mayor-elect Jerry Demings
• Florida Smart Justice
• Republican Party of Palm Beach County
• Florida Family Policy Council

Arguments

• Walton County Sheriff Michael A. Adkinson Jr. argued, "We are all familiar with federal and state laws that provide those accused and convicted of a crime with clear protections to ensure due process. However, many are surprised to learn crime victims don’t have any clear, enforceable rights within the state constitution. This means that, legally, crime victims have less rights than criminals. ... As a sheriff, I’ve witnessed firsthand how crime can destroy people’s lives and the community. I firmly believe we need constitutional provisions that protect the rights of victims as fiercely as the rights of the accused — nothing more, and nothing less. Marsy’s Law for Florida will appear on the ballot this November as Amendment 6. If passed by 60 percent of voters, crime victims will be entitled to the same rights as those accused and convicted of a crime. I joined dozens of my fellow Florida sheriffs in endorsing Amendment 6 because I believe Marsy’s Law will not only benefit our state, but also improve the way we deal with crime and its victims. Marsy’s Law will finally give crime victims the rights they deserve while ensuring the rights for those accused of a crime remain unchanged."

• Orange County sheriff and mayor-elect Jerry Demings wrote, "After a crime occurs, many people question what will happen to the suspect, but very few focus on what will happen to the crime victims and their families. I’ve lost track of the number of times I have read criminals their rights; however, I cannot say the same for crime victims. Florida is one of only 15 states without clear, enforceable protections for crime victims in our state constitution and that should change. Amendment 6 will provide the victims similar rights and protections that are afforded to the accused and convicted. I believe Marsy’s Law should have been placed in our constitution a long time ago, and I look forward to voting yes on 6. Let’s make history, and let victims and their families know Florida stands with them in ensuring equal justice under the law."

Campaign advertisements

The following videos were released by Marsy's Law for Florida:

Title: "You Don't Have The Right - Victims' Rights FL"

Title: "Equal Crime Victims' Rights Through Amendment 6 - Kathy Swafford"

Title: "Crime Victims’ Rights Through Amendment 6 - Agnes Furey"

Title: "Amendment 6 for Victims' Rights - Florida State Attorney Andrew Warren"

Opposition

Opponents

• Save My Constitution opposed this measure, as well as every other measure placed on the November 2018 ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. The group consisted of former state and federal lawmakers including Jim Kallinger (R), Jeff Kottkamp (R), Jennifer Carroll (R), Sandy Adams (R), and Connie Mack (R). The group argued that the measures are confusing and misleading and were placed on the ballot in a deceptive way by bundling multiple subjects in a single proposal.
• League of Women Voters of Florida
• Florida Public Defender Assocation
• ACLU of Florida
• Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida
• Libertarian Party of Florida
• Tampa Bay Young Republicans

Arguments

• The League of Women Voters of Florida argued, "Victims’ rights are already protected in the Constitution, and this amendment would eliminate an existing provision that victims’ rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.."

• When asked what part of the amendment they opposed, the ACLU of Florida said, "We're talking about the misnamed victims rights part of it. I'm a former prosecutor. I was a prosecutor in Miami for 16 years. I am well versed on victims rights. The Florida Constitution as it stands right now has a very robust victims rights section: Victims have the right to be heard, victims have the right to be present in all stages of the proceedings whether it be the filing of charges, arraignment, trial as well as sentencing. They have the right to be informed on what is happening with the case. This constitutional [amendment] gives corporations the same footing as human victims. In other words, you can now have corporations coming into criminal proceedings with high priced lawyers trying to dictate how the criminal justice process should go.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 6. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO. Florida’s Constitution and laws already assure essential victims’ rights, including the right to be informed and heard at every stage. Except for occasional failures of enforcement, there is no problem that needs solving here. We don’t need this elaborate (and expensively advertised and lobbied) import from California, which erases a provision to respect the civil rights of defendants and poses a threat to Florida’s public records laws. Those best suited to judge it, the executive council of the Criminal Law Section of the nonpartisan Florida Bar, recommended against this amendment by a vote of 29 to 3. Amendment 5 also includes two separate and entirely unrelated issues, fixing judicial retirement firmly at 75 (it’s now 70, but flexible) and barring judges from relying on administrative agency interpretations of law. Bundling disparate items into a single amendment is called logrolling, and it’s a fraud on the voters."

• The News-Press said: "This is the first of the bundled amendments by the Constitution Revision Commission. The best part of this amendment is how it expands victims rights to due process, protections from intimidation and abuse by the accused, Modeled after Marcy's Law in California, it expands those rights, including access to sentencing reports. But as with all the bundled amendments, there is a catch. In order to approve that you must also agree to raising the mandatory retirement age for Florida judges from 70 to 75 and agree to prohibit state courts from accepting a certain agency's interpretation of a state statue or rule. Without the age change and courts ability to act on certain interpretations, the bill could make sense. With them, it does not."

• The Tampa Bay Times said: "This measure includes three separate issues — raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, banning courts from deferring to a state agency’s expertise on interpreting a law or rule, and a series of rights for crime victims. These are each big issues that should be considered on their own merits, not jumbled into one proposal. On Amendment 6, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No."

• The Tallahassee Democrat said: "There are some worthwhile proposals that deserved individual consideration, such as improving victims’ rights as part of Amendment 6... If only the Constitution Revision Commission had stopped there. Instead, it linked a mandatory retirement age for judges and a legal procedural process with victims’ rights into the three-subject Amendment 6."

• Your Observer said: "This ballot measure addresses three disparate, unconnected items. And while all three issues appear logical and sensible, they should not be contained in the same ballot question. Regardless of the merits of the proposals, we oppose allowing one group (the Constitutional Revision Commission) to have special privileges that individuals and others groups do not have. We recommend: Vote no."

• The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Our recommendation: NO. Our editorial board is philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of "bundling" unrelated amendments on the ballot. These proposals are vastly different and have far-reaching consequences that voters should be allowed to consider separately."

• The Palm Beach Post said: "Victims’ rights are already protected in the constitution and this measure eliminates an existing provision that ensures victims’ rights don’t infringe on the rights of accused criminals. Also, the ACLU points out that 'victims' would include corporations, which now would have the right to appear in court hearings when they accuse people of even minor crimes like shoplifting."

Additional editorial endorsements

In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure:

• The Florida Times-Union
• The Herald-Tribune
• Ocala.com
• The Daily Commercial
• The Independent Florida Alligator
• Orlando Sentinel
• The Miami Herald

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$37,252,863.00
Opposition:	$0.00

One committee was registered to support this initiative: Marsy's Law for Florida. The committee received a total of $37.25 million in contributions and had spent $37.19 million. Marsy's Law for All Foundation provided $36.93 million, and Henry Nicholas, the founder of Marsy's Law for All, had contributed the rest.

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered to oppose the measure.

Support

The top donor in support of the initiative, Marsy's Law for All Foundation, provided 99.12 percent of the total contributions to the support campaign.

Committees in support of Amendment 6 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Marsy's Law for Florida $33,752,863.00 $3,500,000.00 $33,691,745.83 Total $33,752,863.00 $3,500,000.00 $33,691,745.83

Totals in support Total raised: $37,252,863.00 Total spent: $37,191,745.83

Top donors

The largest donors to the support committee were as follows:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Marsy's Law for All Foundation	$36,927,838.00	$0.00	$36,927,838.00
Henry Nicholas	$325,000.00	$0.00	$325,025.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Marsy's Law

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

The type of crime victim legislation addressed by this measure is often referred to as a Marsy's Law. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for this kind of legislation to increase the rights and privileges of victims. He was the primary sponsor of the original 2008 Marsy's Law in California and formed his national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009. Marsy's Law for All—funded by Nicholas—was behind similar 2016 initiatives in Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota and a 2017 initiative in Ohio—which all passed. Nicholas was also behind legislative proposals in Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and other states. The legislation is named after Henry Nicholas' sister Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Henry and his mother were also confronted by Marsy's ex-boyfriend after his release on bail. Marsy's Law for All is the national organization that advocates for Marsy's Law.

Ballotpedia identified $29.7 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the six Marsy's Law ballot measures. The majority of all contributions—91 percent, or $27 million—came from Henry Nicholas.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

Mandatory judicial retirement ages

See also: Mandatory retirement

The measure increased the age at which judges are required to retire in Florida from 70 to 75. Before passage of Amendment 6, the judicial retirement age was 70 in Florida. Florida was one of 18 states with a required retirement age of 70. Missouri required non-municipal judges to retire at 70 and municipal judges to retire at 75. The highest retirement age in the U.S. was 90 in Vermont. However, 19 states did not have a required retirement age for judges.

Judicial deference in Florida

Administrative State
Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.

See also: Deference (administrative state)

Deference, or judicial deference, is a principle of judicial review. In the context of state administrative law, deference applies when a state court yields to an agency's interpretation of either a statute that the state legislature instructed the agency to administer or a regulation promulgated by the agency. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed several forms of deference in reviewing agency actions, including Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Auer deference.

According to the Florida CRC Executive Committee analysis of the proposal, the Florida Supreme Court, as of 2018, had "shown a substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation" of statutes and rules. In Tallahassee v. Mann (1982), the state Supreme Court concluded that agency interpretations "come to this court clothed with a presumption of validity." In Florida Interexchange Carriers Association v. Clark (1996), the state Supreme Court ruled that "an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled great deference and will be approved by this court if it is not clearly erroneous."

CRC Commissioner Roberto Martinez, who was the lead sponsor of the amendment related to judicial deference, said that state courts giving deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes and rules was not common until the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984. The case is famous for establishing the extent to which a federal court, in reviewing a federal government agency's action, should defer to the agency’s construction of a statute that the agency has been delegated to administer. This principle is commonly known as Chevron deference. Chevron deference is a practice in which federal courts, in reviewing a federal government agency's action, defer to the agency’s construction of a statute that Congress directed the agency to administer.

Path to the ballot

See also: Florida Constitution Revision Commission, 2018 proposals

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) referred the constitutional amendment to the ballot for the general election on November 6, 2018. The Florida CRC is a 37-member commission provided for in the state constitution that reviews and proposes changes to the Florida Constitution. The CRC refers constitutional amendments directly to the ballot for a public vote, which makes the commission unique amongst the states. Florida is the only state with a commission empowered to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot. The CRC convenes every 20 years.

Proposal 6001

In the CRC, the ballot measure was known as Proposal 6001. The measure needed to receive the vote of 22 commissions. On April 16, 2018, a total of 34 members (91.89 percent) voted "yes" on Proposal 6001. Three members (8.11 percent) voted "no" on the proposal.

Proposal 6, Proposal 41, and Proposal 96 were combined to create Proposal 6001.

The following table illustrates how individual commissioners voted on Proposal 6001:

Commissioner	Appointed by	Occupation	Vote
Anna Marie Hernandez Gamez	Senate president	Former President, Cuban American Bar Association; Attorney	a
Arthenia Joyner	Chief Justice	Former State Senator; Attorney	d
Belinda Keiser	Governor	Vice Chancellor, Keiser University	a
Bob Solari	Senate president	County Commissioner, Indian River County; Former President and Manager, RMS Financial Services; Former President and Director, International Citrus Corporation and Incitco Realty, Inc.	a
Brecht Heuchan	Governor	CEO, ContributionLink, LLC; Owner, The Labrador Company	a
Carlos Beruff (Chair)	Governor	CEO, Medallion Homes	a
Carolyn Timmann	Senate president	Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller of Martin County	a
Chris Nocco	House speaker	Sheriff of Pasco County	a
Chris Smith	Senate president	Former State Senator; Attorney	a
Chris Sprowls	House speaker	State Representative	a
Darlene Jordan	Governor	Executive Director, Gerald R. Jordan Foundation; Former Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts	a
Darryl Rouson	House speaker	State Senator	a
Don Gaetz	Senate president	Former State Senator; Retired Vice Chairman, VITAS Healthcare Corporation	a
Emery Gainey	Governor	Director of Law Enforcement, Victim Services & Criminal Justice, Florida Department of Legal Affairs	a
Erika Donalds	House speaker	Member, Collier County School Board; CFO, CCO, and Partner, Dalton, Greiner, Hartman, Maher & Co., LLC	a
Frank Kruppenbacher	Governor	Chairman, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority; Attorney	a
Fred Karlinsky	Governor	Co-Chair, Greenberg Traurig’s Insurance Regulatory and Transactions Practice Group	a
Gary Lester	Governor	Developer and VP, The Villages for Community Relations; President, The Villages Charter School	a
Hank Coxe	Chief Justice	Former President, The Florida Bar; Attorney	d
Jacqui Thurlow-Lippisch	Senate president	Former Mayor of Sewall's Point; Realtor	a
Jeanette Nuñez	House speaker	State Representative	a
John Stemberger	House speaker	President & General Counsel, Florida Family Policy Council	a
John Stargel	Governor	Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court	a
Jose Felix Diaz	House speaker	State Representative	a
Lisa Carlton	Governor	Former State Senator; Co–Owner and Manager, Mabry Carlton Ranch	a
Marva Johnson	Governor	Chair, Florida State Board of Education; Regional VP of State Government Affairs, Charter Communications	a
Nicole Washington	Governor	State Policy Consultant, Lumina Foundation	a
Pam Bondi	Automatic	Attorney General	a
Pam Stewart	Governor	Commissioner, Department of Education	a
Patricia Levesque	Senate president	Executive Director, Foundation for Florida’s Future; CEO, Foundation for Excellence in Education	a
Rich Newsome	House speaker	Senior Partner, Newsome Melton	d
Roberto Martinez	Chief Justice	Former U.S. Attorney for South Florida; Attorney	a
Sherry Plymale	Senate president	Former Member, State Board of Community Colleges	a
Timothy Cerio	Governor	Former General Counsel to Governor Scott; Attorney	a
Tom Grady	Governor	Former State Representative; CEO, Continental Equities Group and GradyLaw	a
Tom Lee	House speaker	State Senator; VP and Director, Sabal Homes of Florida	a
William “Bill” Schifino, Jr.	Senate president	President, The Florida Bar; Attorney	a

Proposal 6

Commissioner Roberto Martinez was the lead sponsor of Proposal 6. The proposal was designed to forbid state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits. On March 19, 2018, Proposal 6 was approved 28 to four with five commissioners not voting. Proposal 6 needed to receive a simple majority vote of the commissioners to move forward.

Proposal 41

Commissioner William “Bill” Schifino, Jr. was the lead sponsor of Proposal 41. The proposal was designed to increase the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75. On March 19, 2018, Proposal 41 was approved 30 to three with four commissioners not voting. Proposal 41 needed to receive a simple majority vote of the commissioners to move forward.

Proposal 96

Commissioner Timothy Cerio was the lead sponsor of Proposal 96. The proposal was designed to add a Marsy's Law crime victims rights amendment to the Florida Constitution. On March 20, 2018, Proposal 96 was approved 30 to three with four commissioners not voting. Proposal 96 needed to receive a simple majority vote of the commissioners to move forward.

Lawsuits

Lee Hollander v. State Officials

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County, Florida. Supreme Court hearing scheduled at 4th District Court of Appeals at West Palm Beach courthouse
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, amendment removed from the ballot. State appealed to Supreme Court.
Plaintiff(s): Lee Hollander, a south Florida criminal defense attorney	Defendant(s): Unknown
Plaintiff argument: The amendment should be removed from the ballot because Florida already has victim protections and rights, the amendment removes rights of criminal defendants, the ballot language is misleading	Defendant argument: Unknown

  Source: Orlando Sentinel

Lee Hollander is a criminal defense lawyer in southwest Florida. Hollander said, "There's no need for it. We've already got all this stuff." Jennifer Fennell, a spokeswoman for the group that is sponsoring Marsy's Law said, "We are confident that baseless, last-minute legal maneuvering by special interest groups will not strip Floridians of their opportunity to support victims and vote in favor of Amendment 6."

Leon County Judge Karen Gievers ruled on August 27, 2018, that the amendment must be removed from the ballot because the language does not "meet the requirements of Florida laws … in fully, fairly and accurately telling voters the chief purpose of the proposed amendment." The state appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.

On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, ordering the amendment to appear on the ballot.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Florida

Poll times

In Florida, all polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. Florida is divided between the Eastern and Central time zones. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Florida, one must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, and a legal resident of Florida and the county in which he or she intends to vote. Pre-registration is available beginning at 16 years of age.

Voters may retrieve registration applications at the following locations:

• Local elections offices
• Public assistance agencies
• Disability services agencies
• Independent living centers
• Military recruitment offices
• Public libraries
• Drivers license office
• Tax collector's office
• The office of any entity authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to issue fishing, hunting, or trapping permits

A registration form is also available online. The form can be printed and submitted via mail.

Click here to find your county Supervisor of Elections.

Automatic registration

Florida does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Florida has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Voters may also apply for or modify their voter registration status while renewing their driver's license through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles’ online renewal system here.

Same-day registration

Florida does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in Florida, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Florida does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, "it is a 3rd degree felony to submit false information."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The page Voter Information Lookup, run by the Florida Department of State, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Florida requires voters to present photo identification with a signature while voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of July 2024. Click here for the Florida Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

• Florida driver’s license
• Florida identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
• United States passport
• Debit or credit card
• Military identification
• Student identification
• Retirement center identification
• Neighborhood association identification
• Public assistance identification
• Veteran health identification card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
• License to carry a concealed weapon or firearm issued pursuant to s. 790.06
• Employee identification card issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the federal government, the state, a county, or a municipality

A voter who presents an ID without a signature must show a second form of identification that includes the voter’s signature.

State profile

Demographic data for Florida
	Florida	U.S.
Total population:	20,244,914	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	53,625	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	76%	73.6%
Black/African American:	16.1%	12.6%
Asian:	2.6%	5.1%
Native American:	0.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.4%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	23.7%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	86.9%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27.3%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$47,507	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	19.8%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Florida. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Florida

Florida voted Republican in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in Florida, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Florida had three Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.66 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respsectively.

More Florida coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Florida
• United States congressional delegations from Florida
• Public policy in Florida
• Endorsers in Florida
• Florida fact checks
• More...

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• State judiciary on the ballot
• Law enforcement on the ballot

Florida

• Florida ballot measures
• Florida ballot measure laws
• Florida Constitution Revision Commission
• Florida Constitution Revision Commission, 2018 proposals

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Proposal 6001

Support

• Marsy's Law for Florida campaign website
• Marsy's Law for Florida Facebook page
• Marsy's Law for Florida Twitter page

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.