STUART, Fla. (CBS12) — Is Florida explaining its proposed property tax amendment—or selling it? A Leon County judge will consider that question Wednesday as former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni and other former elected officials challenge the words voters are scheduled to see on their November ballots.
The title calls Amendment 3 “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.” Its summary says the proposal would benefit Florida taxpayers, protect small businesses, ensure funding for core services and ensure fairness for Florida residents.
Campenni and the other plaintiffs argue those phrases amount to political rhetoric rather than a neutral explanation of the proposal.
The state says the wording accurately describes what the amendment would do.
What would Amendment 3 change?
If approved by at least 60% of voters Nov. 3, Amendment 3 would make several major changes to Florida’s property tax system.
It would create a new homestead exemption for non-school property taxes covering the first $150,000 of assessed value in 2027. That would increase to the first $250,000 in 2028 and be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2029.
The expanded exemption would not apply to school district property taxes.
The proposal would also lower the annual limit on assessment increases for non-homestead real property—including business properties, rental properties and second homes—from 10% to 5% for taxes levied by counties, municipalities and special districts. The lower limit would not apply to school district taxes.
Homeowners who are not permanent Florida residents by Dec. 31, 2026, would have to wait five years to receive the expanded exemption available to existing Florida residents. They could still qualify for a smaller homestead exemption during that period.
The proposal also directs lawmakers to establish a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities to increase the exemption further, potentially up to a homestead’s full remaining assessed value.
None of those changes has taken effect. Voters must approve the amendment first.
Why are they suing?
Three groups filed separate lawsuits challenging the ballot language.
Campenni, former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey and the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language filed the first case. Former South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard filed a second challenge. Former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes and former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson Jr. filed the third.
The court consolidated the cases, meaning Judge David Frank is considering the related challenges together under the lead case number, 2026 CA 001254. The plaintiffs still have separate complaints and arguments.
Campenni joined the case as a Martin County voter, not on behalf of the city of Stuart.
“The ballot summary does not merely describe the Proposed Constitutional Amendment — it endorses it,” his group argues in its amended complaint.
Florida law requires a legislatively proposed amendment’s ballot summary to describe its chief purpose in clear and unambiguous language.
The plaintiffs argue that words such as “save,” “excessive,” “benefits” and “protecting” are promotional and tell voters what to think.
The state argues the words are accurate when the title and summary are read together.
Campenni: Voters should know what they are voting for
Campenni said his lawsuit is not intended to persuade voters to support or reject Amendment 3. He said he wants the ballot language rewritten so voters receive a neutral explanation.
“I’m not saying they shouldn’t vote for it. I’m not saying they should vote for it,” Campenni told CBS12 News reporter Katie Bente. “What I’m saying is they should know what they’re voting for, and I don’t think the present language really explains it.”
Campenni argued that voters should not need legal or legislative expertise to understand a proposed constitutional amendment.
You shouldn’t have to be an attorney or a legislator to understand what you’re being asked to do,” Campenni said.
His group is asking the judge to find the current ballot language defective, which could trigger the process allowing the attorney general to prepare revised wording.
“I just hope the judge sees it our way and gives it to the attorney general for a rewrite,” Campenni said, adding that he wants the amendment to remain on the ballot with language that produces an outcome “that truly reflects what the people want.”
Has Florida faced a similar challenge before?
The challenge is not unprecedented. In 2007, a Leon County judge removed another proposed Florida property tax amendment from the ballot after finding its summary misleading. Jamie Cole, who represents Campenni’s group in the current case, also brought that challenge.
Lawmakers later approved a different property tax proposal with new ballot language. Florida voters passed that replacement amendment in January 2008.
Florida law has since changed. If a court rules that all ballot statements in a legislatively proposed amendment are defective and the appeals process ends, the attorney general generally must prepare corrected language for the ballot.
See also: MCFR Chief says staff cuts, delayed response times are imminent if Amendment 3 passes
Does the amendment guarantee full elimination?
One of the largest disputes involves the summary’s reference to a “schedule for full elimination” of non-school homestead property taxes.
The amendment directs the Legislature to establish a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities to increase the exemption “up to all remaining assessed valuation.”
Plaintiffs argue that language creates a process through which the taxes could eventually be eliminated but does not guarantee that every local government will fully eliminate them.
The state argues the Legislature would be required to create the procedure and that counties and municipalities would be required to follow it. Its attorneys say the ballot summary accurately describes a schedule leading to full elimination.
Does it specifically protect small businesses?
The ballot summary says Amendment 3 would protect small businesses by limiting future property tax assessments.
The plaintiffs point out that the 5% assessment-increase limit would apply broadly to non-homestead real property. That includes property owned by large businesses as well as rental properties and second homes. Small businesses are not separately identified in the proposed constitutional language.
The state responds that small-business properties would still receive that protection, even if other property owners would benefit too.
Would it ensure funding for core services?
The summary says the amendment would ensure funding for core services by restricting how counties and municipalities use property tax revenue.
The proposal identifies approved uses including law enforcement, fire rescue, emergency medical services, roads, bridges, stormwater control and other government obligations.
Plaintiffs argue the amendment restricts how remaining revenue may be spent but does not guarantee how much money would remain for those services after the exemptions expand.
The state says “ensuring funding” describes the restrictions on how the remaining revenue could be used—not a promise of a particular funding level.
Its attorneys also argue that ballot language is not required to explain every possible financial consequence.
What happens next?
Both sides have asked Frank to decide the case without a trial. An expedited hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Wednesday in Tallahassee.
If Frank upholds the current language, voters could see it on their ballots as written, subject to an appeal. If he finds all of the ballot statements defective and further appeals are declined, abandoned or exhausted, Florida law gives the attorney general 10 days to submit revised language correcting the problems identified by the court.
Any new wording could also be challenged. The judge is not deciding whether Florida should reduce property taxes. A ruling against the current wording also would not automatically remove Amendment 3 from the ballot. He is deciding whether the words voters see give them a fair description before they make that choice.