Amendment 1Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Bigger state rainy-day fund
Explain it like I'm 5
Florida has an emergency savings jar for storms and recessions. This would let the jar grow from 10% to 25% of net general revenue and require deposits until it reaches the new limit.
Yes vote
Increasing the Budget Stabilization Fund cap to 25% of net general revenue and generally requiring annual transfers of up to $750 million until the cap is reached.
No vote
Keeping the current 10% cap and current deposit rules.
The question to ask yourself
Should Florida reserve more existing revenue for future emergencies or keep more available for current needs and tax relief?
The case for
- A larger reserve could reduce sudden service cuts after hurricanes, recessions, or sharp revenue drops.
- Required deposits encourage saving during good budget years.
- The fund could provide cash for specified emergencies and critical state needs.
Backed by: No organized campaign found
The case against
- Money placed in reserves cannot fund current services, infrastructure, or tax relief.
- Required deposits reduce lawmakers' flexibility when other priorities need money.
- A larger constitutional reserve may be unnecessary if the existing fund is already adequate.
Opposed by: No organized opposition found
- Money
- There is no new tax, but up to $750 million of existing general revenue could be transferred annually until the higher cap is reached.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the money could never be used, because the measure allows withdrawals for specified emergencies and critical state needs.