TALLAHASSEE, Fla. \u2014 A Leon County judge has ordered Florida to rewrite the ballot language for Amendment 3, ruling that the Legislature\u2019s description of its sweeping property-tax proposal is biased, inaccurate and misleading.<\/p>\n
First reported by Florida Politics, Circuit Judge David Frank granted summary judgment to the challengers Monday night, declared the current title and summary \u201cclearly and conclusively defective\u201d and blocked Secretary of State Cord Byrd from placing that wording on the November ballot.<\/p>\n
Frank ordered Attorney General James Uthmeier to submit corrected language to the Department of State within 10 days. Read the full ruling.<\/a>\u2060<\/p>\n The decision does not remove Amendment 3 itself from the ballot. Frank stressed that the court is not deciding whether the property-tax plan is good policy, only whether voters are receiving a fair and accurate explanation before making that decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThey fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten,\u201d Frank wrote.<\/p>\n Judge calls title a political slogan<\/p>\n Three consolidated lawsuits challenged the title \u201cSave Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes\u201d and a summary promising to benefit taxpayers, protect small businesses, preserve core services and ensure fairness.<\/p>\n Frank agreed that the title resembles campaign messaging more than a neutral description.<\/p>\n \u201cThe title is more akin to a political slogan,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIt is not fair or neutral. It advocates a policy position: to stop excessive property taxes.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge found the word \u201csave\u201d was designed to provoke an emotional response. He also ruled that invoking \u201cSave Our Homes\u201d could confuse voters because that name is already commonly associated with Florida\u2019s existing 3% cap on annual assessment increases for homesteaded property.<\/p>\n Amendment 3 would not change that cap.<\/p>\n Frank further found that the promise to save homes from \u201cexcessive\u201d taxes could be misleading because the amendment does not guarantee lower overall tax bills. Cities and counties could respond to a smaller tax base by raising millage rates or using special assessments, potentially offsetting some homeowners\u2019 savings.<\/p>\n Renters could also face higher costs if landlords pass along increased taxes, Frank wrote.<\/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 the ruling states.<\/p>\n Court finds errors throughout summary<\/p>\n The ruling directs Uthmeier to remove the summary\u2019s opening declaration that the amendment \u201cbenefits Florida taxpayers\u201d and four promotional taglines:<\/p>\n \u201cExempting homestead properties from taxation,\u201d \u201cEnsuring funding for core services,\u201d \u201cProtecting small businesses\u201d and \u201cEnsuring fairness for Florida residents.\u201d<\/p>\n Frank found several additional problems with the description.<\/p>\n The summary says the amendment would exempt the first $250,000 of a homestead\u2019s value when it takes effect in 2027. The proposal would actually set the exemption at $150,000 during 2027 before increasing it to $250,000 in 2028 and adjusting it for inflation beginning in 2029.<\/p>\n The court also rejected language promising a \u201cschedule for full elimination\u201d of non-school homestead property taxes. The amendment would instead require lawmakers to establish a procedure through which cities and counties could increase the exemption up to a home\u2019s full assessed value. It would not require local governments to eliminate those taxes.<\/p>\n Frank found the promise of \u201censuring funding for core services\u201d misleading because the proposal does not guarantee a minimum funding level for police, fire rescue, infrastructure or other services. State economists estimate the measure would substantially reduce the tax revenue available to local governments.<\/p>\n The pledge to protect small businesses was also rejected. The amendment would reduce the annual assessment-growth cap from 10% to 5% for all non-homestead property. That includes large commercial properties, rentals and second homes \u2014 not specifically small businesses.<\/p>\n The judge also ruled that the summary misstates who would face a waiting period before receiving the expanded exemption. The distinction is based on whether someone was a Florida resident by Dec. 31, 2026, and when that person begins claiming a homestead exemption, not simply whether residency was established after Jan. 1, 2027.<\/p>\n Finally, Frank found the summary failed to disclose a potentially significant shift in government authority. The proposal would place language in the Constitution allowing the Legislature to control how cities and counties spend property-tax revenue, an alteration to local home-rule powers the judge said voters should be told about.<\/p>\n Ruling follows heated hearing<\/p>\n The decision largely adopts arguments made<\/a> during a July 29 hearing by plaintiffs including the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, several former mayors, former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes and former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson Jr.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is probably the worst example of a biased ballot question and an inaccurate ballot question that we\u2019ve seen,\u201d plaintiffs\u2019 attorney Jamie Cole told Frank. \u201cThis is really just a political campaign flyer.\u201d<\/p>\n State attorneys had argued that the title and summary must be considered together and are required to describe only the amendment\u2019s chief purpose\u2014not every possible fiscal or policy consequence.<\/p>\n \u201cThe summary is supposed to be written for voters, not for lawyers,\u201d state attorney Ben Gibson said during the hearing.<\/p>\n Frank ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, rejecting the state\u2019s request for summary judgment.<\/p>\n Attorney general gets a roadmap<\/p>\n The ruling provides suggested language for several portions of the replacement summary.<\/p>\n Frank said the new wording should clearly state that the non-school homestead exemption would increase to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. It should describe the reduction of the non-homestead assessment cap from 10% to 5%, accurately explain the residency distinction and include the full range of permitted local-government expenditures.<\/p>\n The attorney general is not required to use Frank\u2019s examples word for word, but the replacement must correct each deficiency identified in the order.<\/p>\n The court will retain jurisdiction over the rewrite. Any challenge to Uthmeier\u2019s replacement language must be filed within 10 days after it is submitted to the Department of State.<\/p>\n The order is final for purposes of an appeal, meaning the state can ask a higher court to reverse Frank\u2019s decision. County election officials may begin printing ballots Aug. 27, leaving a compressed timeline for any rewrite, renewed challenge or appeal.<\/p>\n What Amendment 3 would do<\/p>\n The Legislature approved Amendment 3 during a June special session called by Gov. Ron DeSantis.<\/p>\n For people who establish permanent Florida residency by Dec. 31, the proposal would increase the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. School district property taxes would remain unaffected.<\/p>\n The measure would also reduce the assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, establish a waiting period for newer residents and place constitutional language around how cities and counties spend property-tax revenue.<\/p>\n Florida\u2019s Revenue Estimating Conference projected the quantifiable portions would reduce local property-tax collections by nearly $4.93 billion in the 2027-28 fiscal year. The modeled recurring impact is approximately $11.83 billion annually. Read the state fiscal analysis.<\/a>\u2060<\/p>\n Amendment 3 requires support from at least 60% of voters to pass in November.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. \u2014 A Leon County judge has ordered Florida to rewrite the ballot language for Amendment 3,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":362597,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[133243,129194,28,147445,30,29,44397,14559,1289],"class_list":["post-362596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-florida","tag-amendment-3","tag-ballot-language","tag-florida","tag-florida-ballot-2026","tag-florida-headlines","tag-florida-news","tag-florida-property-tax","tag-homestead-exemption","tag-leon-county"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362596","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362596\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/362597"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}