- Article I, Section 26
View Full Text (pdf)
- Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.
|Statewide total needed for judicial and financial impact review:
|Statewide total needed to make ballot position:
|Statewide total currently valid:
|Congressional district totals needed for judicial and economic reviews and ballot placement, with currently valid signatures:
View by District by County
- *Statewide and congressional district totals for ballot position are NOT OFFICAL until an initiative petition is certified to have made ballot. Once an initiative petition is certified for ballot position, total currently valid may exceed the official totals at time of certification. For status on ballot position, see Status Table below.
- Two signature thresholds must first be met for ballot position: 1) statewide total [8 percent of the votes cast in the last presidential election], and 2) Congressional District signature totals in at least 14 of Florida's 27 Congressional Districts [8 percent of the votes cast in each Congressional District in the last presidential election]. See section 3, Article XI, Fla. Const., section 100.371, Fla. Stat.
- A Congressional District may consist of one or more counties and a county may be part of more than one congressional district. To find out the signature threshold required in each Congressional District for review and ballot position, the current number of verified signatures in each Congressional District by county, and how many Congressional Districts may have met or exceeded signature thresholds, click the link above titled "View by District by County".
|Sent to Supreme Court:
|Supreme Court Ruling:
|SC Ruling Date:
Date: ||11/02/2004 |
| Votes For:
| Votes Against: