A court case in Tallahassee will determine what Florida voters see on their ballots in November.<\/p>\n
It centers around a proposed constitutional amendment that would lower state property taxes<\/a>.<\/p>\n A large number of local governments have spoken against the change, warning it would harm the services funded by the tax and that fees would have to be raised elsewhere.<\/p>\n ALSO READ: Florida\u2019s property tax reduction plan heads to voters. Here\u2019s what\u2019s in it<\/a><\/p>\n A Tallahassee judge heard arguments on Wednesday and will rule soon on whether there should be new ballot title and summary language \u2014 the information that appears on the ballot.<\/p>\n The current wording has drawn several lawsuits, with plaintiffs saying it\u2019s misleading and biased. The state has pushed back, saying what\u2019s presented gives voters an accurate, fair and legally acceptable description.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is probably the worst example of a biased ballot question and an inaccurate ballot question that we’ve seen,\u201d said Jamie Cole, an attorney for some of those suing the state over it.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs include the group Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language<\/a>, two former mayors, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson and former Florida Republican Sen. Jeff Brandes, who has since created a policy think tank.<\/p>\n The title: \u201cSAVE OUR HOMES FROM EXCESSIVE PROPERTY TAXES<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n The summary: \u201cThis amendment benefits Florida taxpayers by: Exempting homestead properties from taxation. Exempts the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value from taxation for all levies other than school district levies and requires, through general law, a schedule for full elimination. Ensuring funding for core services. Requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources. Protecting small businesses. Limits future property tax assessments on businesses. Ensuring fairness for Florida residents. Requires any person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027, to maintain Florida residency for five years prior to receiving the increased homestead exemption. If approved, the amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027.\u201d<\/p>\n The suing parties have issues with large portions of the summary. They even say the title has problems, calling it too political and promotional.<\/p>\n “This is like a medical commercial where it talks only about the benefits but doesn’t tell you that this is going to last a lot longer than four hours, that it’s going to last generations,\u201d Brandes said.<\/p>\n He and other plaintiffs also said parts of the summary are false, like one line saying it ensures funding for core services. The language in the Constitution would actually say property taxes can only be spent on core services.<\/p>\n But if property taxes are lowered, local governments could have less money to fund them.<\/p>\n Lawyers for the state argued that you had to read the summary as a whole, pointing to the following line: \u201cRequires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMany of the plaintiffs’ arguments here today, I think, depend upon assuming that the voters will somehow misunderstand what is straightforward language, or is not going to read the ballot title in the summary as a whole,\u201d said attorney Ben Gibson.<\/p>\n ALSO READ: How far does Florida\u2019s property tax proposal go? There are some questions<\/a><\/p>\n Another debate is whether the measure creates \u201ca schedule for full elimination,\u201d as is written in the summary. Even top lawmakers said different things<\/a> whether this would allow lawmakers to require even greater property tax reductions from local governments without another constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n The Florida Legislature had a special session to create the proposed constitutional amendment. It must be approved by at least 60% of voters.<\/p>\n Judge David Frank told both sides to submit draft versions of the ruling they want him to issue by 5 p.m. Monday.<\/p>\n