TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (CBS12) — A Leon County judge has ruled that the ballot language for Florida’s proposed property tax constitutional amendment is misleading and must be rewritten before appearing on the November ballot.
In an 18-page order issued late Monday, Leon Circuit Judge David Frank found that both the ballot title and summary failed to fairly and accurately explain the amendment to voters.
“Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination,” Frank wrote. “The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.”
The ruling does not remove the proposed amendment from the ballot. Instead, it orders Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite the ballot language to correct the problems identified by the court.
Under state law, Uthmeier has 10 days to submit revised language to the Florida Department of State if the ruling is not appealed. The court will retain jurisdiction over any legal challenges to the new wording.
The proposal was drafted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has traveled across Florida criticizing increases in property tax revenue collected by local governments during the past six years.
The amendment would increase the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and then raise it to $250,000 in 2028. It also would reduce the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.
Judge Frank Ruling on wording of Florida property tax amendmentPDF previewPreview PDF
Before approving the proposal, the Republican-led Legislature added language excluding the portion of property tax bills used to fund public schools from the increased homestead exemption.
The court said the current title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” uses political rhetoric and could mislead voters by suggesting the amendment would guarantee lower property taxes.
Frank also found that several statements in the summary were inaccurate, promotional or insufficiently explained.
Among the issues cited, the judge said the summary incorrectly states that the amendment would immediately exempt the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value from taxation. The order notes that the exemption would first rise to $150,000 in 2027 before increasing to $250,000 in 2028.
The judge also objected to language stating that the amendment benefits Florida taxpayers by “exempting homestead properties from taxation,” “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents.”
Frank described the phrases as political rhetoric rather than neutral explanations of the amendment.
The ruling also says the summary should more closely match the actual text of the proposed amendment and avoid phrases the court characterized as political slogans or advocacy.
Frank found that the summary failed to adequately explain how the amendment could affect the home-rule powers granted to cities and counties under the Florida Constitution.
Those provisions generally give local governments broad discretion over how they spend property tax revenue.
See also: US Marshals arrest baby’s father in connection with Fort Pierce malnutrition death
Under the proposed amendment, property tax spending by cities and counties would be limited to a list of approved uses, including public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt, employee retirement benefits, government operations and other spending approved by local officials unless prohibited by state law.
Critics have argued that the provision could give the Legislature greater control over local government budgets.
“The amendment purports to change the constitutional baseline of city and county power by placing in the Constitution for the first time the Legislature’s right to control ad valorem tax spending,” Frank wrote.
The ruling followed three lawsuits challenging the ballot language that were later consolidated into one case.
The challengers included Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, a nonprofit created to challenge the proposal; former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni; former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey; former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson; and former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes.
Jamie Cole, an attorney representing Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, said the group did not seek to remove the measure from the ballot.
“Our goal here right from the beginning was not to take this off the ballot,” Cole told the News Service of Florida. “We want the voters to have the opportunity to make an informed decision and in order to do that they need fair and accurate language.”
Brandes said an appeal could create timing problems because ballot language must be finalized before November ballots are prepared.
“It’s an option, but we’ll see if the attorney general exercises it,” Brandes said. “They run into a real time crunch if they start doing that.”
Spokespeople for DeSantis and Uthmeier did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.
Material from the News Service of Florida was included in this article.