Florida Amendment 13, Ban On Wagering On Dog Races Amendment (2018)

Florida Amendment 13
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Gambling and Treatment of animals
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 13, the Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment, was on the ballot in Florida as a commission referral on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

Election results[edit]

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath[edit]

This article contains a developing news story. Ballotpedia staff are checking for updates regularly. To inform us of new developments, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support Working Animals and other plaintiffs including greyhound trainers, kennels, and suppliers, filed a federal lawsuit in October 2019 seeking to overturn the ban implemented by Amendment 13. The plaintiffs alleged that the amendment was an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. On April 27, 2020, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker dismissed the lawsuit. Judge Walker wrote, "Through Amendment 13, Florida has prohibited plaintiffs’ property from being used in a particular manner that the state has determined to be contrary to the health, morals, or safety of the community. Whether Amendment 13′s purpose was to protect the health and welfare of racing dogs or to prohibit wagering on dog races, Amendment 13 is a legitimate exercise of Florida’s police power."^[3][4]

On May 11, 2020, Support Working Animals and other individual plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee, Florida, naming Attorney General Ashley Moody as a defendant. The lawsuit argued that Amendment 13 violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution because the measure prohibits wagering on dog racing and not horse racing. The lawsuit said, "From within the pari-mutuel permitholder group, the greyhound racing industry was singled out for a deprivation of their rights based on political animus. This type of baseless categorization for disparate treatment of classes is unconstitutional. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution abhors classifications undertaken for the sake of excluding some from benefits but not others without some affirmative justification for doing so."^[5]

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker dismissed the amended suit on June 12, 2020, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Attorney General Ashley Moody over the ban. Walker wrote, "the injuries plaintiffs allege in this case are neither traceable to nor redressable through Florida’s attorney general." Support Working Animals appealed the case to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on July 13, 2020.^[6]

On August 12, 2021, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit upheld Walker's decision and said, "The plaintiffs’ real problem, as we understand their complaint, is with [the amendment] itself — its existence — and the economic consequences that its passage has visited or will visit on their businesses. None of that, though, appears to be due to any past, present, or likely future conduct of the attorney general.” The ruling stated that plaintiffs could refile the lawsuit against the correct parties (not specified).^[7]

Overview[edit]

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) voted 27-10 to place Amendment 13 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.

Amendment design

Amendment 13 was designed to prohibit pari-mutuel (a type of betting pool) operations from racing greyhounds or any other dogs for wagering beginning on January 1, 2021. The measure was also designed to prohibit persons in the state from wagering on the outcome of live dog races occurring in the state. Amendment 13 authorized the Florida State Legislature to specify civil or criminal penalties for violating the constitutional amendment.^[8]

What is the status of dog racing in the United States?

Going into the election, Florida was one of 10 states where wagering on dog races was legal. However, in just six states, including Florida, were there operating dog racing tracks for gambling. Neighboring Alabama also had active race dog racing tracks in 2018. The remaining 40 states had prohibited wagering on dog races.^[9] In 1931, the Florida State Legislature passed a law to allow wagering on horse racing and dog racing.^[10]

Campaigns for and against Amendment 13

Two committees were registered to support this initiative: Protect Dogs (Yes on 13) and the Committee to Protect Greyhounds. The committees reported a combined total of $3.82 million in contributions and $3.23 million in expenditures. The top donors to the support campaign include the Doris Day Animal League ($1.6 million) GREY2K USA Worldwide and GREY2K USA Education Fund ($885,013). GREY2K USA is a non-profit that, according to its website, works "to pass stronger greyhound protection laws and promote the rescue and adoption of greyhounds."^[11][12]

One committee was registered to oppose the measure: the Committee to Support Greyhounds. The committee reported a total of $142,443 in contributions and $141,873 in expenditures. The top donors include Gary Keller ($10,000), National Greyhound Association ($6,000), Mardi Gras Greyhound Foundation ($5,000), and the Iowa Greyhound Association ($5,000).^[11]

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:^[8]

Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary was as follows:^[8]

Constitutional changes[edit]

See also: Florida Constitution

Amendment 13 added a new section to Article X and a new section to Article XII of the Florida Constitution. The following text was added:^[8]

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Support[edit]

Protect Dogs- Yes on 13 led the campaign in support of this amendment. Protect Dogs- Yes on 13 describes itself as "a grassroots campaign working to end the cruelty of greyhound racing in Florida."^[14]

On its website, Protect Dogs- Yes on 13 wrote:^[15]

Supporters[edit]

Supporters of Amendment 13 included the following:^[16]

Arguments[edit]

• Florida Sen. Dana Young (R-18) said, “It’s time for Florida to move beyond mandated greyhound racing."^[16]
• Carey Theil, co-founder of Grey2K USA, an organization opposed to greyhound racing, said, "Commercial greyhound racing is cruel and inhumane. Every three days, a greyhound dies at a Florida dog track. Greyhounds endure lives of confinement, and many suffer serious injuries."^[19]
• Kate MacFall, the Florida director of The Humane Society of the United States, issued a statement regarding a lawsuit filed by the president of the Florida Greyhound Association, in which she indicated her support for Amendment 13 by saying, "This lawsuit is dead on arrival. It is a desperate attempt to prevent voters from having a voice on whether greyhound confinement and deaths should continue. It was filed because greyhound breeders know that when Amendment 13 appears on the ballot, Floridians will vote yes for the dogs."
• The League of Women Voters of Florida argued, "This is primarily a gambling issue, and the League has held a consistent position against gambling."^[20]

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following videos were released by Protect Dogs- Yes on 13:^[21]

Opposition[edit]

Support Greyhounds led the campaign in opposition to this amendment. Support Greyhounds described its mission as, "preserving the proud tradition of Florida greyhound racing and educating the public about these amazing athletes and pets."^[22]

Opponents[edit]

The following individuals, organizations, and greyhound adoption groups opposed the amendment:^[23][24][25]

Arguments[edit]

On its website, Support Greyhounds wrote:^[38][39]

Greyhound Adopters for Racing featured the following argument on its website:^[40]

• A.J. Grant, owner of a kennel that supplies greyhounds to the Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club said, "We will let you in [to the facility]. You can come see for yourself. We've got nothing to hide. Don't accuse me of abusing these dogs and running them to death if you don't have any proof."^[19]

• Jack Cory of the Florida Greyhound Association responded to arguments of cruelty to greyhounds during transport and racing, arguing that “We probably have a better safety transportation record than Greyhound Bus Lines or than a school system or than a nursing home does. So all of the allegations by political activists are just that. They're mirrors and they're smoke and they're political activists. Athletes die. Athletes get hurt. Athletes have heart attacks after a strenuous football game or a baseball game. It happens. It's unfortunate.”^[41]

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following videos were released by the Committee to Support Greyhounds:^[42]

Media editorials[edit]

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

• The Sun Sentinel said: "YES. This effectively bans greyhound racing in Florida by prohibiting wagering on the dogs, although not on races conducted out of state. Although the sport’s popularity has been sagging along with the state’s revenue from it, state law requires Florida’s 11 dog tracks to continue racing in order to keep their card rooms and slot machines. The chief objection to Amendment 13 is that such an issue doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Trouble is, the potent lobby for breeders and handlers persistently blocks the Legislature from outlawing this brutal “sport,” in which dogs are often injured and die and are tightly caged when not racing. Amendment 13 deserves to be ratified."^[43]
• The Naples Daily News said: "We recommend approval of the amendment based on two principles: the state shouldn’t force a business to operate in ways that have proven unprofitable, and animals should be treated humanely. Forty states ban dog racing. Florida is one of just six states where dog racing is legal and operational. A 2004 Florida Senate report says the Legislature first authorized wagering on dog races nearly 90 years ago. Times have changed dramatically. It’s way past time to end dog racing."^[44]
• The Palm Beach Post said: "Two more CRC-sponsored amendments also have merit. Amendment 12 would expand ethics rules on lobbying. Amendment 13 would ban the outdated and inhumane activity of greyhound racing."^[45]
• The Florida Times-Union said: "This amendment would ban dog racing as of Dec. 31, 2020 while continuing to allow dog tracks to offer other types of gambling such as poker rooms. State law mandates that in order to operate certain other forms of gambling, a certain number of greyhound races must be held. The Legislature has refused to “decouple” dog racing from the other forms of gambling, thus interfering in the free market. Because the Legislature refuses to act, amending the Constitution is the only method left."^[46]
• The Herald-Tribune said: "This prohibition is long overdue. It should have been imposed by the Legislature but various efforts failed. There will be no significant loss, except to the owners and trainers of racing dogs, if the amendment is approved. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 13."^[47]
• The Daily Commercial said: "YES. It’s time to end the archaic sport of dog racing in Florida."^[48]
• The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - Ends Dog Racing would put an end to greyhound racing involving betting over the next two years. We agree with animal rights activists — the inhumane way in which the dogs are raced and treated must come to an end."^[49]
• The Orlando Sentinel said: "Dog racing is an anachronism with far too much baggage when it comes to the potential for mistreating animals. Reason enough for Floridians to vote yes on Amendment 13."^[50]
• The Miami Herald said: "But dog-racing has become a loss leader, a sideshow to slots and card rooms. Amendment 13 allows them a graceful exit from this anachronistic form of entertainment."^[51]

Opposition[edit]

• The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 13: The proposal ends commercial dog racing by 2020, but those who bet could still wager on races occurring in other states. Forty states already ban the activity and we support animal rights groups who want to protect the dogs where accidents, death and drugging are a part of the sport. Dog racing is dying in the state and soon, because of pressure from groups, other laws will be changed to discontinue it and allow tracks, like the one in Bonita Springs, to be profitable through card games, slots and other gaming."^[52]

• The Tampa Bay Times said: "The proposal would outlaw betting on greyhound racing by the end of 2020, though it would allow tracks to continue some other pari-mutuel offerings. Whatever your view on dog racing, its disposition doesn’t belong in the Constitution. On Amendment 13, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No."^[53]

• The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it."^[54]

• Your Observer said: "Dog racing is waning. Rather than clutter Florida’s constitution with provisions on dogs and pigs, let the marketplace determine the future of the sport. Its declining economics most likely will bring it to an end. We recommend: Vote no"^[55]

• The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "This issue should be addressed by the Legislature, not in the state's primary governing document."^[56]

Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

Two committees were registered to support this initiative: Protect Dogs (Yes on 13) and the Committee to Protect Greyhounds. The committees reported a combined total of $3.82 million in contributions and $3.23 million in expenditures. The top donors to the support campaign include the Doris Day Animal League ($1.6 million) GREY2K USA Worldwide and GREY2K USA Education Fund ($885,013). GREY2K USA is a non-profit that, according to its website, works "to pass stronger greyhound protection laws and promote the rescue and adoption of greyhounds."^[11][57]

One committee was registered to oppose the measure: the Committee to Support Greyhounds. The committee reported a total of $142,443 in contributions and $141,873 in expenditures. The top donors include Gary Keller ($10,000), National Greyhound Association ($6,000), Mardi Gras Greyhound Foundation ($5,000), and the Iowa Greyhound Association ($5,000).^[11]

Support[edit]

Top donors[edit]

The top donors to the support campaign are as follows:^[11]

Opposition[edit]

Top donors[edit]

The top five largest donors in opposition to Amendment 13 are below:^[11]

Methodology[edit]

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

Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

The following poll was conducted by Cherry Communications and commissioned by the Florida Chamber of Commerce to gauge voter support and opposition toward the amendments on Florida's 2018 ballot. A total of 605 likely voters were polled, including 237 Republicans, 249 Democrats, and 119 others.^[58]

Background[edit]

Legality of pari-mutuel betting on dog racing[edit]

As of 2018, Florida was one of 10 states where dog races upon which there is wagering was legal. However, in just six states, including Florida, were there operating dog racing tracks for gambling. Neigboring Alabama also had active race dog racing tracks in 2018. This information was provided by Grey2K USA, which endorsed this measure and was a top donor to the support campaign. The states counted below as those in which pari-mutuel wagering on dog races is illegal includes states in which pari-mutuel wagering in general is illegal.^[59]

Gambling in Florida[edit]

Prior to 1931, gambling was outlawed in Florida. The Florida State Legislature passed a law to allow wagering on horse racing and dog racing, which Gov. Doyle Carlton (D) vetoed. Legislators voted to override the governor's veto, enacting the law on June 5, 1931. In 1935, the state legalized slot machines, but then repealed the law in 1937 following voters banning slot machines through ballot measures in multiple counties.^[10]

In 1987, the state launched the Florida State Lottery after voters approved an amendment the previous year. The vote was 63.57 percent to 36.43 percent.^[10]

The Seminole Tribe of Florida began operating a bingo hall in 1979. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), allowing tribes to establish casino gambling on tribal land. The act permitted states to form compacts with tribes to regulate Class III gaming, but not to regulate Class I and Class II gaming. Class I and Class II gaming were defined to include traditional tribal gaming with minimal prizes, bingo, and card games. Class III was defined to include all other games not considered Class I or Class II, such as roulette, craps, keno, slot machines, pari-mutuel wagering, and lotteries. In 1991, the Seminole Tribe sued Gov. Lawton Chiles (D), arguing that the state government failed to negotiate in good faith a compact to allow the tribe to establish a Class III gaming. The case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in the state's favor, in 1996.^[10] In 2010, the Seminole Tribe negotiated a Class III gaming compact with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist. The compact allowed the Seminole Tribe to operate blackjack at five facilities through 2015 and required the tribe to share revenue with the state.^[60] In 2015, Gov. Rick Scott (R) formed a new 20-year compact with the Seminole Tribe, which added craps and roulette to the agreement and gave the tribe the exclusive right to blackjack.^[61][62][63]

On November 2, 2004, 50.83 percent of statewide voters supported an initiative, Amendment 4, to allow voters in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to authorize slot machines at pari-mutuel facilities, such as horse racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai exhibititions, that existed and were licensed during the two years prior.^[64] On May 18, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a local law allowing slot machines in Gadsden County, concluding that the state constitution only allowed slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.^[65]

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Florida Constitution Revision Commission, 2018 proposals

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission referred the constitutional amendment to the ballot for the general election on November 6, 2018.^[66] 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 6012[edit]

In the CRC, the ballot measure was known as Proposal 6012. The measure needed to receive the vote of 22 commissions. On April 16, 2018, a total of 27 members (72.97 percent) voted "yes" on Proposal 6012. Ten members (27.03 percent) voted "no" on the proposal.^[66]

Proposal 6012 was a revision of Proposal 67.^[66]

The following table illustrates how individual commissioners voted on Proposal 6012:^[67]

Commissioner	Appointed by	Occupation	Vote
Anna Marie Hernandez Gamez	Senate president	Former President, Cuban American Bar Association; Attorney	d
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.	d
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	d
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	d
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	d
John Stargel[68]	Governor	Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court	d
Jose Felix Diaz	House speaker	State Representative	d
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	a
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	d

Proposal 67[edit]

Commissioner Tom Lee was the lead sponsor of Proposal 67. The proposal was designed to prohibit wagering on greyhound and other dog races. On March 20, 2018, Proposal 67 was approved 18 to 14 with five commissioners not voting.^[69] Proposal 67 needed to receive a simple majority vote of the commissioners to move forward.

Lawsuit[edit]

Florida Greyhound Association v. Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner

In the complaint, the Florida Greyhound Association argued that the ballot title, "ENDS DOG RACING" is false. The Association further argued the following:^[70]

Kate MacFall, the Florida director of The Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement, "This lawsuit is dead on arrival. It is a desperate attempt to prevent voters from having a voice on whether greyhound confinement and deaths should continue. It was filed because greyhound breeders know that when Amendment 13 appears on the ballot, Floridians will vote yes for the dogs."^[71]

On July 6, 2018, it was reported that Judge Karen Gievers decided to skip holding a trial and make her ruling in the lawsuit based on legal arguments alone. The support committee, Protect Dogs, has been barred from testifying in the case. Lee Collins with Protect Dogs said, “There's no question with what the facts are in this case, so it's a legal argument that's going to be made by both sides and the judge is going to make a decision. So this is what we expected, and this is relatively typical in this circumstance.”^[72]

On August 1, 2018, Judge Karen Gievers ruled that the amendment must be taken off the ballot. In her order, she wrote, "Contrary to the words presented for consideration by the voters, the amendment would not end dog racing, nor would it eliminate wagering on dog racing. In short, proposed Amendment 13 is misleading and inaccurate and incomplete[...]" Gievers' ruling also stated, "If the CRC (Constitution Revision Commission) wanted Florida voters to be able to rethink the relationship between live animal racing and the operation of slot machines, or to be able to adopt as a constitutional fundamental value the humane treatment of animals, the CRC could have included the appropriate language in the ballot and summary."^[73] The Protect Dogs campaign and Attorney General Pam Bondi said they would appeal the decision.^[74]

The Protect Dogs campaign and Attorney General Pam Bondi said that they would appeal the decision. Christine Dorchak, president and general counsel of Grey2K USA, said, “We want the people to finally make a judgment on this cruel activity, and that’s why we are confident that this misguided judgment will not stand." Grey2K USA is a major donor to the Amendment 13 support campaign. Dorchak predicted that the ruling would be overturned on appeal and said, “I don’t think anyone’s here to throw stones, but this [the ruling] is really a nearly 30-page diatribe. It’s not the kind of ruling we would expect to see from a court in Florida.”^[73]

On August 2, 2018, the state's chief deputy solicitor general appealed the decision, which also put an automatic stay on the case, meaning that the measure could still appear on the ballot. Parties to the case requested the matter be heard in the Florida Supreme Court and requested an expedited hearing process.^[75]

On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, ordering the amendment to appear on the ballot.^[76]

How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in Florida

Poll times[edit]

In Florida, all polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Florida is split between Eastern and Central time zones.^[77]

Registration requirements[edit]

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.^[78][79]

Voters may retrieve registration applications at the following locations:^[78]

• Local elections offices
• Public assistance agencies
• Disability services agencies
• Independent living centers
• Military recruitment offices
• Public libraries
• Offices that issue driver's licenses
• Fishing and hunting license shops

A registration form is also available online. The form can be printed and submitted via mail.^[79]

Automatic registration[edit]

Florida does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

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

Same-day registration[edit]

Florida does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements[edit]

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[edit]

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

Florida does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration[edit]

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

Voter ID requirements[edit]

Florida requires voters to present photo identification with a signature while voting.^[80][81]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2019. 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.

Background[edit]

In 1977, the Florida Legislature required every voter to present an ID in order to vote. In 1998, the legislature required voters to present a photo ID.^[81]

As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.^[82][83]

State profile[edit]

Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Florida

Florida voted Republican in three out of the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

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.^[84]

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
• Influencers in Florida
• Florida fact checks
• More...

See also[edit]

2018 measures 2018 ballot measures Gambling on the ballot Treatment of animals on the ballot 2018 legislative sessions

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[edit]

• Proposal 6012

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of Florida Tallahassee (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy