Skip to Navigation | Skip to Main Content | Skip to Site Map

Account: Sign Up | Login

Florida Constitution Revision Commission

PUB 700599: Revise Appointments to the Constitution Revision Commission by Philip Padovano

ARTICLE XI: AMENDMENTS, Section 2. Revision commission.

SECTION 2.Revision commission.
  1. Within thirty days before the convening of the 2017 2037 regular session of the legislature, and each twentieth year thereafter, there shall be established a constitution revision commission composed of the following thirty-seven members:
    1. the attorney general of the state;
    2. fifteen twelve members selected by the governor;
    3. nine six members selected by the speaker of the house of representatives and nine six members selected by the president of the senate; and
    4. three twelve members selected by the chief justice of the supreme court of Florida with the advice of the justices.
  2. The governor shall designate one member of the commission as its chair. Vacancies in the membership of the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments.
  3. Each constitution revision commission shall convene at the call of its chair, adopt its rules of procedure, examine the constitution of the state, hold public hearings, and, not later than one hundred eighty days prior to the next general election, file with the custodian of state records its proposal, if any, of a revision of this constitution or any part of it.

Note to Commissioners: (not a part of the proposal) This proposed revision would distribute the appointments to the Constitution Revision Commission more equitably among the branches of government. The judiciary is arguably in the best position to understand the potential impact of a given change in the organic law of our state and yet, under the current version of Article XI section 2, the Florida Supreme Court is entitled to appoint only 3 of the 37 members of the commission. That makes no sense. We have three branches of government under our Constitution. There is no reason why each of them should not have an equal voice in proposals to revise the Constitution.