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
© 2025 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 AllLatest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
3 minute readMiami-Dade Litigation Over $1.7 Million Brazilian Sugar Deal Faces Turning Point
3 minute readMeta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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