Vote No on 8 is a coalition of partner organizations dedicated to informing the public about Amendment 8, and why they should vote against this damaging and misleading measure.
For more information on the Vote No on 8 Committee, press inquiries, or organizations interested in joining the coalition, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Editorial Comments About Amendment 8:
The Orlando Sentinel:
“That’s why opponents are right to be suspicious of Amendment 8. It could be a back door to making private religious schools eligible for state funding through school vouchers. This policy has been embraced before by lawmakers but struck down in some court rulings based on the no-aid provision. It would siphon badly needed public dollars from public schools.”
The Miami Herald:
“We find this amendment still disingenuously worded. The proposal is not about religious freedom at all, but rather a blatant attempt to use public money to finance private religious institutions.”
The TC Palm:
“…this proposal is superfluous and does not belong in the Constitution.”
The Bradenton Herald:
“Taxpayers should not be forced to support religious institutions they find objectionable for whatever reason. The separation of church and state must be maintained. The “no aid” provision in the Florida Constitution should be maintained and this amendment rebuffed.”
“That is a sound expression of public policy, preventing unnecessary financial entanglement between church (and mosque and synagogue) and state.”
The Florida Times-Union:
“The uncertainty over what it would mean and the lack of clarity about what problem it would actually solve are reasons enough to vote against it.”
The Sun Sentinel:
“Money, filthy lucre, a raw grab for taxpayers’ millions, is behind Florida’s proposed Constitutional Amendment 8, purposely misnamed “Religious Freedom.” Those words disguise the fact that it destroys the historic separation between church and state.”
The Tampa Bay Times:
“This sweeping change to church-state separation isn’t obvious from the amendment’s title or summary. The title “Religious Freedom” inverts the true meaning. It is a denial of religious freedom to be forced to support another’s religious beliefs.”
“…it would essentially deregulate the money, forbidding the state from ensuring that the money isn’t subsidizing discrimination, bigotry and favoritism. That’s not religious freedom. It’s not even government sponsorship of religion. It’s plain and simple irresponsible, unaccountable use of taxpayer dollars.”
The Palm Beach Post:
“If you find some of the proposed constitutional amendments on Florida’s November ballot confusing, that’s because you’re supposed to be confused. Legislators wrote the ballot questions so voters wouldn’t understand the true ramifications of the amendments.””The ballot language doesn’t mention education, but the amendment’s purpose is to enable religious schools to get direct state money. That might not go over well with taxpayers, so legislators cloaked their intention under the guise of not denying benefits based on faith.”
The Florida Political Press:
What others are saying…
“Amendment 8 is called ‘Religious Freedom’ but it will actually have the opposite effect. This Amendment could force taxpayers to fund religious views they may oppose.” – Deirdre Macnab, President of the League of Women Voters of Florida.
“Amendment 8 is not about freedom of religion. The true intent is to de-fund our public schools. Florida PTA believes public tax dollars should remain a means of support for our public education system. Florida PTA is urging Florida voters to say NO to Amendment 8.” – Eileen Segal, President of the Florida PTA.
“The Legislature is trying to mislead and deceive the public into voting for something that repeals what the separation of church and state is all about. It’s not about religious freedom at all. It’s about getting access to taxpayer dollars. It creates an entitlement public funding for any organization that calls itself religious.” – Howard Simon, ACLU Executive Director.
“We could see a time where in order to get healthcare services for children, they’ve got to attend some type of religious meeting or discussion or counseling services that are provided are provided through a religious bent.” – Rich Templin, Legislative and Political Director for the Florida AFL-CIO.
“Religious entities already can, and do, get public funds to provide secular services. This funding is not in jeopardy. Amendment 8 is an overreaction that strips Florida’s Constitution of important safeguards currently in place.” – Rabbi Merrill Shapiro, President of the Flagler County Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.