Attorney General James Uthmeier<\/p>\n
Photography by The Workmans<\/p>\n
http:\/\/wearetheworkmans.com<\/p>\n
A circuit court judge has found the language for Florida\u2019s touted \u201ctax reform\u201d amendment misleading and has given State Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to revise the ballot title or summary.<\/p>\n
\u201cSimply put, the proposed ballot title does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it endorses it and diverts voters from its actual effect,\u201d Circuit Court Judge David Frank, of the 2nd Judicial Circuit, wrote in an 18-page order issued Monday.<\/p>\n
The order states that the ballot summary for Amendment 3 is more a sales pitch than an explanation of what changes the proposed constitutional amendment would bring about.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe ballot summary tells voters that the amendment \u2018benefits Florida taxpayers,’\u201d the order states. \u201cWhether the amendment would \u2018benefit\u2019 taxpayers is the central policy question voters are being asked to decide. The ballot summary then sets forth three political taglines \u2013 \u2018Ensuring funding for core services,\u2019 \u2018Protecting small businesses,\u2019 and \u2018Ensuring fairness for Florida residents\u2019 \u2014 giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal. But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption,\u201d Frank found.<\/p>\n
The ballot language as currently stated is legally defective as it \u201cmisleads\u201d and \u201cmisstates,\u201d the judge found.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn summary, voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination. The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,\u201d Frank found.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe ballot title and summary simply must pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot,\u201d the order also states.<\/p>\n
The order was hailed by opponents of the measure who said Amendment 3 would be a tax shift, not tax relief, and that it would significantly impact the ability of local governments to provide necessary services.<\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s ruling affirms our stated concerns since the idea of property tax elimination was first floated by Gov. DeSantis in February 2025: that presenting this as a \u2018savings\u2019 for Floridians fundamentally misrepresents the true consequences of this amendment,\u201d stated the Florida Policy Institute Tuesday morning. \u201cEliminating homestead property taxes would be a monumental cost shift. It would result in reduced or eliminated public services \u2013 longer emergency response times, rural hospitals shuttered, libraries closing, and more expensive childcare and summer camps, to name just a few ways Amendment 3 would erode Floridians\u2019 quality of life and make Florida more unaffordable. Floridians deserve accurate information on what is at stake and we urge Attorney General Uthmeier to respond to the judge\u2019s order and strip out the extreme bias in Amendment 3\u2019s ballot language.\u201d<\/p>\n
The challenge was brought forward by Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, Inc. which describes itself as a not-for-profit social welfare corporation, and two affected resident individuals, contending that the ballot title and ballot summary for the Proposed Constitutional Amendment would mislead voters.<\/p>\n
Relief sought was that the \u201cCourt declare that the Ballot Statement is unfair, biased, misleading and inaccurate\u201d and direct the attorney general to correct deficiencies found by the court.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs did not ask the court to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot, states they understood that is not an option. The judge\u2019s order that the language be re-written does not remove Amendment 3 from the ballot. <\/p>\n
The Court retained jurisdiction over any challenge to a revised ballot title or ballot summary prepared by the Attorney General.<\/p>\n
For the measure to pass, more than 60% of the voters would need to vote \u201cyes\u201d in the General Election in November.<\/p>\n