TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — There are six statewide amendments on the ballot for Florida voters this election.

Some of the amendments, like ones regarding abortion and marijuana, have received a lot more attention than others. Below are the six amendments that Florida voters will see on their ballots. Some of the amendments require financial impact statements alongside the ballot summary.

Amendments 3 and 4 were placed on the ballot via a citizen initiative. The others were placed on the ballot by the Florida legislature.

All of the amendments require 60% of the vote in order to pass.

Amendment 1: Partisan Election of Members of District School Boards

Amendment 1 would amend the State Constitution to require school board candidates be elected in a partisan election instead of the current non-partisan fashion.

A “yes” vote means parties would nominate their own candidates for school board and allow candidates to have their party affiliation listed on the ballot, according to the James Madison Institute. A “no” vote would keep in place the current system that doesn’t allow school board candidates to run under party affiliations.

Ballot summary

“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.”

Amendment 2: Right to Fish and Hunt

This amendment would enshrine the right to fish and hunt into the State Constitution. A “yes” vote would limit lawmakers’ ability to ban or restrict forms of hunting or fishing, according to the James Madison Institute.

Ballot summary

“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.”

Amendment 3: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana

This amendment would allow the non-medical use of marijuana for those 21 and older in Florida, with limits on possession amounts. Voting against the amendment would keep current laws in place.

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, injection, 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.”

Financial impact statement

“The amendment’s financial impact primarily comes from expected sales tax collections. If legal today, sales of non-medical marijuana would be subject to sales tax and would remain so if voters approve this amendment. Based on other states’ experiences, expected retail sales of non-medical marijuana would generate at least $195.6 million annually in state and local sales tax revenues once the retail market is fully operational, although the timing of this occurring is unclear. Under current law, the existing statutory framework for medical marijuana is repealed six months after the effective date of this amendment which affects how this amendment will be implemented. A new regulatory structure for both medical and nonmedical use of marijuana will be needed. Its design cannot be fully known until the legislature acts; however, regulatory costs will probably be offset by regulatory fees. Other potential costs and savings cannot be predicted. THIS PROPOSED CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE A NET POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE STATE BUDGET. THIS IMPACT MAY RESULT IN GENERATING ADDITIONAL REVENUE OR AN INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES.”

Amendment 4: Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion

Amendment 4 is the most controversial of the six amendments. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, Florida implemented a six-week ban on abortions.

A “yes” vote would allow abortions up to viability, which is when health care professionals determine the fetus could survive on its own or when it’s necessary to protect the life of the mother. A “no” vote would keep Florida’s six-week ban.

Critics also took issue with the financial impact statement placed next to this amendment on the ballot, saying it uses language that has “nothing to do” with financial impact and is meant to confuse voters.

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.”

Financial impact statement

“The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO AMIGUITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT.”

Amendment 5: Annual Adjustments to the Value of Certain Homestead Exemptions

Supporters argue this amendment could encourage more people to own homes while saving money, but critics fear if one group saves money, then others, like renters and businesses, may be forced to pay more.

A “yes” vote would allow the homestead exemption to change based on inflation. The James Madison Institute provides an example that if inflation was 8%, the exemption value would increase to $27,000 from $25,000. A “no” vote would keep the exemption the same regardless of inflation.

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.”

Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement

This amendment would get rid of the state’s provision that provides public funds for those running for statewide office, such as governor, attorney general, or chief financial officer, according to the James Madison Institute.

A “no” vote would keep the current public financing in place.

The James Madison Institute said that supporters of the amendment believe taxpayer money shouldn’t be used for elections and that it would lower taxes. Critics of the amendment say the public financing allows those who don’t have money or fundraising capabilities to have an equal chance at running for statewide office.

Ballot summary

“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.”