The Leon County Commission voted 6-1 to revive a charter amendment that would address the historical harms caused by past Leon County government policies. Earlier this year, the proposed amendment failed to receive the needed support from the charter review committee vote, failing 9-9. However, the Leon County Commission directed staff to conduct an analysis of the proposal and report back to the commission. The report, presented during the April 14 meeting, highlighted concerns about the legality of such an amendment in the wake of anti-DEI legislation recently signed into law. However, the 6-1 vote tasked the county attorney with revising the proposed amendment to remove any references to reparations, slavery and DEI. Commissioner Nick Maddox said the measure is not about DEI. “This is about historic harms and public policy,” he said. “It’s about legislation that harmed anyone regardless of race.” The proposal calls for the county to study past injustices and allocate funding toward corrective initiatives. Leon County Commissioner Brian Welch, who voted against the measure, said the proposal is plainly reparations. The Report The Leon County Commission previously received a report on a proposed charter amendment aimed at addressing long-standing disparities tied to historic public policies, but officials were not expected to take further action after the charter review committee declined to advance the measure earlier this year. The proposal, presented by Dr. Strouble and reviewed by a county committee on Feb. 19, 2026, sought to require the county to systematically assess and address what the measure defined as “persistent disparities” experienced by individuals or communities whose ancestors were affected by unconstitutional historical policies. Committee members ultimately voted not to recommend the amendment to the full commission, citing legal and practical uncertainties. Under the proposal, the county would have been required to conduct historical impact audits every five years to identify communities affected by policies such as slavery, debt peonage, convict leasing, segregation under Jim Crow laws, exclusionary zoning, and urban renewal programs that displaced residents. The audits would document the policies involved, evaluate present-day disparities, and recommend programs or investments to repair or mitigate those impacts. The amendment also would have authorized the creation of a Community Restoration Fund dedicated to supporting services and investments for affected communities. Additionally, it would have allowed the county to prioritize access to county-owned land for individuals or communities determined to have experienced disparities stemming from historic policies. However, the county staff analysis concluded that the scope and intent of the proposal were unclear in several key areas. One unresolved question was whether the amendment would require the county to address only its own past actions or also policies enacted by other entities, including state and federal governments or private actors. During earlier discussions in January 2026, the proposal included explicit references to race. That language was removed before the February meeting and replaced with the term “unconstitutional,” a change supporters said was intended to make the measure more broadly applicable. Still, staff noted that many of the historic policies referenced in the amendment involved protected classes, raising potential legal concerns. Those concerns were amplified by recent state and federal actions limiting the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI-related programs. Florida lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1134 during the 2026 legislative session, a measure scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2027, unless vetoed by the governor. The legislation broadly prohibits local governments from funding or implementing programs that provide preferential treatment based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, or ethnicity. County officials warned that violations of the law could carry significant consequences, including potential removal from office for elected officials found to be in violation. Residents would also have the ability to file legal actions seeking damages or court orders to halt prohibited programs. Federal policy changes could also affect the county’s ability to move forward with initiatives tied to the proposed amendment. New federal contracting and grant requirements are expected to require recipients of federal funds to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws and avoid programs considered discriminatory under federal standards. Leon County receives substantial federal funding, including grants for infrastructure and public safety projects. Officials cautioned that adopting policies perceived as conflicting with state or federal requirements could jeopardize those funds. Despite these concerns, elected officials voted to have staff conduct a further analysis which was the basis for the discussion at the April 14 meeting. During the meeting, Maddox said the Charter Review Committee could reconsider the issue if DEI is not part of the approach. Some Charter Review members did say they would have voted for the amendment if not for legal issues. “And I want the public, the general public to understand what I’m voting on. I’m going to say it one more time so I’m clear. I am not voting on a race or gender-based program. I am not voting on DEI,” said Maddox. ...read more read less