10

Loading video...

By Giulia Carbonaro

Senior Reporter

0

Share

Newsweek is a Trust Project member

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

The title and summary of a much-awaited property tax cut proposal set to be placed on the November ballot in Florida are misleading and contain political rhetoric, a Tallahassee judge ruled on Monday, ordering them to be redrafted.

The decision breaks a weekslong impasse around the proposal’s wording in the state, after multiple lawsuits were filed by opponents challenging the amendment’s language, including former lawmakers.

In their bipartisan lawsuit filed last month, former U.S. Representative Al Lawson, a Democrat, and former state Senator Jeff Brandes, a Republican, argued that the ballot language was written to persuade voters rather than inform them of the amendment's impact on the state.

Read More on U.S.

Judge David Frank of the Leon Circuit Court sided with the two former lawmakers on Monday night. In his 18-page ruling, he said that “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, on the other hand, “would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” he wrote.

“Judge Frank’s ruling was firmly grounded in decades of Florida Supreme Court precedent,” Brandes told Newsweek.

“As he wrote, the ballot language ‘must pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot.’ He concluded that the title and summary ‘fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten,'” he said.

“The court also made clear that this case was never about the merits of the amendment,” Brandes added. “Beyond that, the order is remarkably direct.”

Newsweek reached out to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' office via email for comment.

What Is the Proposal About?

The proposal, known as Amendment 3 or “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes," was passed by the Florida GOP-led legislature earlier this year after much back and forth between the House, the Senate, and DeSantis.

It was the Republican governor, now in his last months in office, who pushed strongly for lawmakers to introduce meaningful property tax reforms, throwing his support behind efforts to eliminate property taxes entirely. But after the Florida legislature passed a version of the proposal that did not exactly reflect the one presented by the governor, DeSantis said he would take a step back and not campaign to support the amendment.

Under the proposal that will be put in front of voters in November, the current $50,000 homestead exemption limit would be raised to $150,000 in January 2027 and to $250,000 in January 2028, excluding school district levies. The amendment would also limit local spending to “core services,” such as public safety, public education, infrastructure and natural resource management.

...

There is no mention in the proposal of raising the exemption to $500,000, as DeSantis wanted to, though the bill would authorize lawmakers to pass a general law laying out the procedure for counties, municipalities and school districts to increase the homestead exemption “up to all remaining assessed valuation.”

As it involves amending the Florida constitution, the proposal would require the approval of at least 60 percent of voters to pass.

Why Has It Come Under So Much Fire?

According to estimates by state economists, the amendment would result in the loss of $5 billion in tax revenues next year and almost $11 billion by 2031.

Critics have argued that the proposal would cause a critical loss of revenues for local governments, which is likely to compromise the continuous operation of key public services such as public safety, emergency services, parks and road maintenance, unless fees are raised elsewhere—adding another financial burden on residents while the burden of property taxes is being lifted.

These are the services that property taxes normally pay for:

• Local government
• Schools
• Libraries
• Public health services
• 911 dispatchers
• Emergency management
• Police and fire departments
• Road maintenance
• Parks and recreation

Several law enforcement groups in the state, including the Florida Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), firefighters’ union and fire chiefs, and Sheriffs Association, have publicly spoken out against the proposal.

In a Facebook post from July 24, FOP—the second-largest police union in the state—said they were going to oppose the amendment “because it creates far too much uncertainty about how local governments would continue to fund law enforcement, fire rescue, emergency medical services, and other critical public safety functions.”

They added: “Public safety should never become collateral damage with uncertain fiscal consequences.”

Just before FOP, Florida Professional Firefighters, a union representing about 31,000 firefighters and EMS personnel in the state, had expressed a similar opinion, as had the Florida Fire Chiefs Association.

“Our position is not about opposing tax reform, it is about protecting the people we serve every day. Public safety is the foundation that allows Florida’s families, businesses and economy to thrive, and any lasting reform must ensure reliable funding that keeps those services strong,” Wayne ‘Bernie’ Bernoska, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters, said in a letter to its members mentioned by local news media.

The Florida Sheriffs Association joined this group of opponents on August 3, issuing a statement of “concern” on social media, saying the ballot initiative “potentially allows Tallahassee to control your local budgets, creates longer law enforcement response times, limits communities’ abilities to provide road repairs and stormwater removal—these are a few of the things voters deserve to be aware of.”

Related Story



Florida Condo Crisis Deepens as 2,500 Buildings Show Signs of Deterioration

What Is So Controversial About the Ballot Language?

This was the ballot language approved by lawmakers:

Amendment 3: “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes”

“This 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.”

In the multiple lawsuits filed against the ballot language used above by a nonprofit and former lawmakers, critics have argued that the word “save” frames the proposal inappropriately, suggesting an apparently necessary advantage, while the word “excessive” refers to something that is subjective rather than objective. The proposal, as above, also claims that the amendment “benefits Florida taxpayers” while it will only benefit one specific category—homeowners.

Among the many more criticisms brought forward, there is also the one around the proposed “full elimination” of property taxes in the future, including for school districts, which technically would allow for that to be implemented by lawmakers without voters needing to approve it; and the fact that “ensuring funding for core services” does not necessarily force local governments to fund them fully.

What Happens Next?

The proposed amendment will still appear on the November ballot, though its language will likely have to change according to Frank’s instructions. Among the changes, Frank ordered phrases such as “exempting homestead properties from taxation,” “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses,” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents” not to be used in the proposal’s summary, as they represent “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation.”

The amendment offers no specific protection for small businesses, as stated in its summary, and discriminates against renters and first-time homebuyers while promising fairness for all Floridians, Frank ruled. The proposal, in fact, would force new residents to wait five years before benefiting from the higher homestead exemption—an idea pushed by DeSantis to put Floridians first and avoid snowbirds and newcomers moving to the state just to benefit from the property tax cut.

“We are pleased with Judge Frank’s order, and particularly the specificity of his findings as to the defects that need to be corrected by the Attorney General. We are not trying to deprive the voters from the opportunity to vote on this important issue—we want to ensure that when they vote they are able to make an informed decision,” Jamie Cole, attorney for Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, said in a statement to Newsweek.

“That is only possible if the ballot title and ballot summary are fair and accurate. Hopefully, the Attorney General will re-write the ballot title and ballot summary to correct the specific defects found by the Judge within ten days and do so in a fair and accurate manner.”

Under state law, Attorney General James Uthmeier will have 10 days to rewrite the ballot summary for the proposal if the ruling is not appealed. Newsweek reached out to Uthmeier’s office for comment via email.

Brandes said he expects the state “will seriously consider an appeal, although it’s too early to know what course it will ultimately take. An appeal would add procedural complexity, but it would not necessarily affect whether the amendment appears on the ballot,” he told Newsweek.

“If the proposal is rewritten so that it accurately, objectively, and neutrally describes its chief purpose and legal effect, I believe that matters,” Brandes said. “Floridians deserve to make this decision based on an honest and accurate ballot summary, and that’s exactly what Judge Frank’s order requires.”

Cole said the nonprofit hopes that the defendants will not appeal, “but do not know whether they will. Judge Frank’s order is very well written and supported by decades of judicial precedent, and thus we believe that, if it is appealed, it should be affirmed."

“As Judge Frank’s order ruled, the ballot title and summary were very biased in favor of passage and thus there was a realistic fear that voters would be misled and improperly influenced. There is no place for political rhetoric and advocacy in the ballot box," Cole said.

Update 8/7/2026, 3:30 a.m. ET: This article was updated with comments from Jeff Brandes.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Ben Kelly and Sam Wilson.

View 0 Comments

Request Reprint & Licensing

Submit Correction

View Editorial & AI Guidelines