The 2000 high-speed rail constitutional amendment has begot at least three other proposed constitutional amendments, resulting in a present-day election debate that raises two questions: Is the high-speed rail proposal the problem? Or, is Florida's citizen initiative-based constitutional amendment process at fault?

Many believe the answers to both questions may be "yes."

"This system is going to cost a heck of a lot of money -- billions and billions of dollars," says Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political science professor. "And, the constitution is supposed to be a blueprint and framework for government. It is not appropriate to put policy issues like this in it. High-speed rail does not pass the test."

Florida voters will get a chance to weigh in on the debate Nov. 2 when they vote on two of the constitutional amendments that descended from the 2000 high-speed rail ballot vote.

In this election, Amendment 2 would push back the timeline for approving citizen initiatives that would become proposed constitutional amendments, and Amendment 6 would repeal the constitutional amendment requiring the state to build a statewide high-speed rail system.

Opponents in the debate have strong views.

"This is quite clearly something that the people want, and depending on the administration, it is also something the state wants," says Ken Walton, executive director of The Rail Truth, a pro-rail group. "It has been in Florida law to build a system from Tampa to Orlando since 1992, but absent it being in the constitution, there is no mandate it be done. The will of the people is being ignored."

Fred Leonhardt, an Orlando attorney and chairman of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, feels differently.

"This type of matter should not be dealt with in the constitution," he says. "The constitution shouldn't be used to work out the trendy issues of the day like fast trains or the size of a classroom."

Florida is not alone in debating the question of high-speed rail. Whether or not to build rail systems that would travel at speeds of more than 120 mph has become a national argument.

In fact, according to Charlie Quandel, chairman of the High Speed Rail Ground Transportation Association, 11 high-speed rail systems currently are being discussed across the United States.

"Five of these systems are considered mature, meaning they have done environmental studies, and Florida is one of them," says Quandel. In addition to Florida, the mature systems include one in California, another in the Pacific Northwest, the MidWest Regional Rail Initiative and a system that would blanket the southeast United States from Washington, D.C., to Charlotte, N.C.

The focus of the debate, says Quandel, is funding: How will the systems be funded? And who will pay for them?

A lot of money already has been spent on taking these mature systems from the conceptual stages to operation. While the state of California has spent $30 million, those involved with the MidWest system have spent $150 million.

Florida's High Speed Rail Authority has spent more than $14 million on ridership, feasibility and environmental studies, along with public workshops, hearings and contract negotiations, for just the first two phases of the state's planned 1,272-mile system.

More money is needed on a national basis. Some $89.9 billion is necessary nationwide to get the 11 systems under discussion from the drawing table to groundbreaking.

Congress is on the case. Four different bills have been considered to make federal money available for high-speed rail projects. The most popular idea is to do it through tax credit bond issues. A bill to this effect has 135 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"There is a lot of support for meeting this need," says Gary Burns, a spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park.

Nearly three decades old, though, Florida's high-speed rail debate has risen above the traditional funding questions surrounding systems in other parts of the nation.

Here, it is a constitutional mandate.

True, the debate in Florida originally was fueled by government concerns over how to fund a statewide rail system. The debate began in 1976 with a legislative mandate to study the feasibility of building a system between Daytona Beach and St. Petersburg. Then-Gov. Bob Graham kept the torch lit, and in 1984, the state's first High Speed Rail Commission worked on plans for a system that would connect Orlando, Miami and Tampa.

Govs. Bob Martinez and Lawton Chiles ushered in the era of little government support for high-speed rail, and when Gov. Jeb Bush took office in 1998, many thought it signaled the final death blow to high-speed rail hopes in Florida. Bush immediately terminated all state funding for high-speed rail.

"High-speed rail failed continuously because of the constant change in leadership in Tallahassee," says state Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, a driving force behind high-speed rail. "The attitude changed from one governor to the next."

The debate was just heating up, though.

Lakeland businessman Doc Dockery -- the state senator's husband -- entered the fray. Through a citizen's initiative, he was able to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2000, mandating the governor, the Cabinet and the Florida Legislature build a system connecting Florida's five-largest urban areas -- Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Jacksonville and Sarasota.

Florida voters liked the idea, with nearly 53 percent approving the amendment.

Since 2000, the ballot box has been ground zero for the state's rail debate, with the focus squarely on how to deal with the constitutional amendment.

In fact, even before the high-speed rail amendment was approved, its opponents -- who questioned how the state would pay for the multibillion-dollar system -- had created a constitutional amendment for the 2000 ballot that required all future constitutional amendments to come with a price tag, indicating the fiscal impact the amendment would have on the state. It also passed.

This year, amendments 2 and 6 pick up where the 2000 election left off.

Funding remains the biggest issue (see info box, "The Great Debate"). Bush and Tom Gallagher, the state's chief financial officer, led the charge to get Amendment 6 on the ballot, basing their opposition on the state's role in funding the system and what they perceive as a lack of private-sector involvement.

"There is no money automatically available in the transportation budget for high-speed rail," says Gallagher. "High-speed rail should be built by the private sector. I don't think the state should be burdened by a financial commitment to build it."

Proponents of rail disagree.

"This would be a true public-private partnership. Every transportation project starts with some government funds," insists state Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland.

Then there is Amendment 2.

Leonhardt believes Amendment 2 would help prevent policy issues, such as high-speed rail, from becoming constitutional amendments by pushing back the deadline. Amendment 2 calls for presenting petitions to the state for a proposed ballot amendment by Feb. 1 of the year of the general election.

"The high-speed rail amendment popped up 91 days ahead of the 2000 election. It left little time for people to debate the issue. Some people believe that if there had been just a week or two more it wouldn't have passed," explains Leonhardt.

The hope, he adds, is that the Feb. 1 deadline will allow the Legislature to take a look at the ballot amendments during its regular session and take up those policy issues better suited for state statute than constitutional mandates.

"These issues should be handled by the 160 people we elect to serve as the board of directors of the state," Leonhardt adds. "The Legislature is better equipped."

So what happens to high-speed rail if the amendments pass and the high-speed rail constitution mandate is repealed?

"It doesn't mean it's over," says Sen. Dockery. "It may just take two more years until Gov. Bush is gone before construction can begin."