Rebekah Bydlak, Guest columnist Published 10:24 a.m. CT Oct. 25, 2018 | Updated 11:44 a.m. CT Oct. 30, 2018
Rebekah Bydlak(Photo: Submitted)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a bad bill in search of support needs a good name. This tactic is all too familiar to anyone who spends any time following politics.
After all, who could oppose the “America is for Americans” Act or the “Housing Opportunities Made Equal” (HOME) Act? Who is anti-“Dreams” or against affordable healthcare? Never mind the actual policy and all its unintended consequences.
Florida’s constitutional amendments might not include flowery titles, but the same game is afoot this year with a seemingly simple measure that puts gun owners and farmers in its crosshairs.
That’s why a coalition that includes Florida Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, and Unified Sportsmen of Florida has come out against Amendment 13.
Why would farmers and sportsmen care so much, you might ask, about greyhound racing? Because as usual, the devil is in the details. And in this case, voters won’t even get to see those details on their ballots.
On first glance, Amendment 13 seems like one of the simplest among a notoriously complicated list. It ends gambling on dog racing in Florida – not dog racing itself, though one could predict the end result would be roughly similar.
When they go to the polls, voters will see only a short summary of 13: That it “Phases out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020” and “Other gaming activities are not affected.”
But if the Amendment passes, another sentence will be permanently inserted into Florida’s constitution: “The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida.”
Even the notorious 2002 “Pregnant Pig
