On August 3, a Leon County Circuit Court Judge held the ballot statement and summary for Amendment 3, Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes, are clearly and conclusively defective. Consolidated Case Nos. 2026 CA 1254, 2026 CA 1405, 2026 CA 1381. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement did not request the court to strike the proposed Amendment off the November ballot. Instead, they claimed the ballot statement and summary did not fairly and accurately inform voters of the chief purpose of the amendment.
The Circuit Court relied on numerous historical Florida cases related to constitutional amendments and ballot language. Such cases set a “constitutional baseline” that a ballot statement and summary cannot “hide the ball” of the amendment’s true effect. Nor can the ballot language fail to inform voters of the material effects of the amendment. Ultimately, a proposed ballot statement and summary must be “an accurate, objective, and neutral summary of the proposed amendment.”
Amendment 3’s Title
The Judge found Amendment 3’s ballot title, Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes, is improper and more akin to a political slogan. The title uses the term “save,” which the Florida Supreme Court has previously held is rhetoric designed to elicit an emotional response. The Judge also found the phrase “Save Our Homes” to be misleading, since Amendment 3 “has nothing to do with” Florida’s well-known and popular limitation on increases to a homestead property’s annual assessed values.
The Judge also found the word “excessive” to be misleading, as renters of homes “would most likely be subject to a higher property tax (as a result of the likely increase in millage rate).” The Judge noted that even homestead property owners are not “saved” from higher property taxes, as Amendment 3 does not restrict millage rate increases or other special assessments. Amendment 3 does not affect the power of local governments to set millage rates; therefore, the ballot title is misleading.
Amendment 3’s Summary
A ballot summary should explain what the amendment will do, not advocate for its adoption. Judge Franks found many of the words and phrases in the ballot summary simply advocate or mislead, instead of explaining.
Benefits Florida Taxpayers – this is the central policy question voters are being asked to decide. The statement in the summary is an improper conclusion.
Ensuring Funding for Core Services – the proposed amended does not “ensure” funding for any public services, nor does it create any new restrictions on how property tax revenues may be expended. It is neither fair nor accurate to describe the Amendment as “ensuring funding.”
Additionally, the Judge determined that the Amendment would give the Legislature control over local government ad valorem tax spending for the first time. This is a major change, which must be identified by voters.
Protecting Small Businesses – nowhere in the Amendment are small businesses either mentioned or given any protection. Nor does the Amendment protect any non-homestead property from increased millage rates or special assessments.
Ensuring Fairness for Florida Residents – in fact, the Amendment would discriminate against Florida residents who rent their homes, increasing the tax burdens from millage rate increase. The Amendment would also discriminate against any Florida residents who establish or re-establish residency after December 31, 2026, by forcing them to wait five years before obtaining the higher $250,000 homestead exemption.
Maintain Florida Residency for Five Years – the ballot summary materially misdescribes the five-year limitation by identifying the wrong class of persons subject to this limitation and misstating when such person becomes eligible.
A Schedule for Full Elimination – the ballot summary tells voters the Amendment will ultimately lead to the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homestead property. However, the actual Amendment only requires the Legislature to create a schedule by general law, with all authority to do so resting independently with each local taxing jurisdiction.
Exempts the first $250,000 – the ballot summary suggests that the $250,000 homestead exemption would apply upon voter approval. However, the express language of the Amendment would only exempt the first $150,000 of value in 2027.
The Remedy
Florida law requires that once a court finds a ballot statement or summary defective, the Florida Attorney General, James Uthmeier, shall within 10 days prepare a revised ballot statement or summary that corrects the deficiencies identified by the court. The court retains jurisdiction over the revised ballot statement and summary. All eyes now turn to how the Attorney General, Governor DeSantis’s former chief-of-staff that was appointed Attorney General by the Governor in February 2025, will revise and resolve these deficiencies.
Recent Comments