Clearview Research Poll: Voters Back School-Board Term Limits
A proposed constitutional amendment that would impose eight-year term limits on members of county school boards would pass comfortably if it goes on the November ballot, according to a new poll.
March 13, 2018 at 03:56 PM
4 minute read
A proposed constitutional amendment that would impose eight-year term limits on members of county school boards would pass comfortably if it goes on the November ballot, according to a new poll.
The poll, released Tuesday by the Tallahassee-based firm Clearview Research, shows that 68 percent of voters support limiting school-board members to two four-year terms. The Florida Constitution Revision Commission is looking at placing the issue on this year's general-election ballot.
“The eight-year term limits [proposal] for school board members begins in relatively safe territory for two reasons. First, it begins with 68 percent support and second it is an easy and clear concept for voters to understand,” Steve Vancore, president of Clearview Research, said in comments accompanying the poll results.
The CRC meets every 20 years and has the power to directly place proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot. Vancore's firm polled 750 likely voters on a series of issues being considered by the commission, which is expected to finalize a list of ballot proposals this spring.
The proposal to place term limits on school-board members, offered by CRC member Erika Donalds, has drawn widespread attention and objections from groups such as the Florida School Boards Association and the League of Women Voters of Florida.
“This proposal would apply to only one group among several similar groups of local elected officials,” the school boards association said in a document on its website. “It seems discriminatory and punitive to single out one group to be subjected to these conditions and limitations that are not applied equally to all similar groups.”
Nevertheless, term limits, which were approved in 1992 for members of the state Legislature, have been popular with voters. The poll results released Tuesday indicate that 68 percent of voters would “definitely” or “probably” vote for school-board term limits, while only 25 percent would “definitely” or “probably” vote no.
Constitutional amendments require 60 percent approval to pass.
Clearview Research conducted the poll from March 1 through March 7, with the results having a margin of error of 3.58 percentage points. The firm on Tuesday released the results of three questions about proposed constitutional amendments.
While the term-limits proposal received broad support, voters appear unlikely to approve another high-profile proposal that would lift a ban on state money being used to support churches and other religious groups, what is commonly known as the “no aid” provision of the Constitution.
The no-aid provision, for example, has become an issue in debates about school vouchers. The First District Court of Appeal in 2004 cited the provision in striking down a voucher program that paid for children to go to religious schools, though the Florida Supreme Court later found the program unconstitutional on other grounds.
The poll indicated only 41 percent of voters said they “definitely” or “probably” would support a proposed constitutional amendment to remove the no-aid provision from the Constitution, while 51 percent said they definitely or probably would not.
Vancore acknowledged difficulty in wording the poll question to come up with a “neutral and accurate” description of the proposal and consulted with an election attorney, Glenn Burhans, about wording issues. But Vancore said the firm decided to stick closely with the way the proposed constitutional amendment is worded.
“With that we are comfortable with the language as it accurately describes the actual impact and, as such, [the proposal] begins in a very poor position with a majority [51 percent] voting 'no' and only 41 percent indicating a 'yes' vote,” Vancore said in the written comments. “As worded, this item would have virtually no chance of attaining the 60 percent threshold.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250