Attorney Jamie Cole said he hoped defects in the description of Amendment 3 would be corrected so that voters can make an informed decision in November.
Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state won’t appeal a Leon County judge’s ruling that concluded the title and ballot summary of a measure to increase Florida’s homestead exemption are misleading and “clearly and conclusively defective.”
The proposed constitutional amendment, which was drafted by state lawmakers to provide property tax relief, will go before voters in November as Amendment 3 – but not until the title and ballot summary are rewritten. In an Aug. 3 decision, Second Judicial Circuit Judge David Frank sided with plaintiffs who argued the title and summary fail to describe the chief purpose of the measure and would mislead voters.
“The ballot title is: ‘Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,’” Frank said in his opinion. “The title is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral. It advocates a policy position: to stop excessive property taxes.”
The revised description of the proposed constitutional amendment is being overseen by Attorney General James Uthmeier and will clarify matters for voters, DeSantis said last week.
The main provisions of the proposal are to raise the state’s property tax exemption for non-school taxes to $150,000 next year and then to $250,000 in 2028; to reduce the annual cap on the assessed value of non-homestead properties, such as commercial establishments and rentals, from 10% to 5%; and to direct counties and cities to use remaining property taxes for public safety, infrastructure, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees and administration and operations.
The measure exempts school district property taxes from its relief provisions.
The contention that Amendment 3 would save homeowners from “excessive taxation” is not true in all cases, according to Frank, “because the benefit from the higher exemption for a particular homestead property (particularly homes with high taxable values) could be offset by a higher millage rate (or by special assessments).”
The Legislature’s analysis of the amendment forecasts that local governments would lose annual revenues in the billions of dollars ($8.79 billion in fiscal year 2028-2029). The measure would reduce the local non-school property tax base, forcing local governments to either reduce public services or look to increase millage rates on property where possible, according to Frank’s decision.
“The summary states that the amendment is ‘Ensuring funding for core services’ because it ‘requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs,’” Frank said. “Yet the proposed amendment does not ‘ensure’ funding for police, fire protection, schools, infrastructure or any other ‘core’ public service. …”
The judge also took exception to the summary’s claim that the amendment would protect small businesses. Such businesses are given no special “protection” in the proposed amendment, Frank said.
“The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” he added.
Jamie A. Cole, the attorney for the plaintiffs, including the group Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language Inc., said the judge’s order calling on the state attorney general to correct deficiencies in the title and summary within 10 days was in line with decades of judicial precedent.
“We are pleased that there will be no appeal because, based upon timing, it would create a risk of depriving the voters of the opportunity to vote on this important issue in November,” Cole told the Florida Record in an email. “That has never been our goal; rather, our goal has always been limited to ensuring that voters are able to make an informed decision. That is only possible if the ballot title and ballot summary are fair and accurate.”
He said he hoped Uthmeier would correct the amendment description’s defects in a fair and accurate manner.
