TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The proposed property tax amendment that is supposed to go before voters in November is misleading, a Florida judge ruled Tuesday.
The judge is ordering the Florida attorney general to rewrite the ballot measure, which he says is full of “political taglines” that do more to make the amendment appealing for voters than actually tell them what the amendment will do.
Recommended Videos
Attorney General James Uthmeier has to submit the revised ballot language to the Florida Department of State within 10 days.
Anyone challenging the new ballot language has 10 days to do so once it’s submitted to the Dept. of State.
What is the amendment?
A group called Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language sued the state over the amendment passed by the Florida Legislature earlier this year.
That amendment, titled “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” would expand the homestead exemption to $150,000 starting in 2027, and to $250,000 beginning in 2028.
It also reduced the cap on increasing the tax assessment on non-homesteaded properties to 5% per year, and limits how local governments can use tax revenue to “core services,” which include: public safety (law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical services), public schools, infrastructure (road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control), natural resource projects (like flood control measures), fund county administration officers, and meet obligations for local government employees’ retirement benefits.
You can read the full ballot language HERE.
What the judge says
In his ruling, Judge David Frank said he can’t strike the amendment from the ballot, and he is not assessing the merit or wisdom of the amendment. His job is simply to determine whether the ballot title and summary “pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot.”
“They fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten,” the judge added.
Frank ruled the ballot title and summary are full of “political taglines” that give reasons for voters to say yes to the amendment, but that is not the purpose of the title and summary. The purpose is to explain what the amendment does, not advocate for its adoption.
In one example, Frank writes, “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.’ Yet the proposed amendment does not ‘ensure’ funding for police, fire protection, schools, infrastructure, or any other ‘core’ public service, nor does it create any new restrictions on how property tax revenues may be expended. In fact, by substantially reducing the local property tax base, the proposed amendment is likely to decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services. The amendment cannot fairly or accurately be described as ‘ensuring funding.’”
Frank also says the ballot summary claims the amendment will ultimately lead to the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homestead property. Except the amendment does not require “full elimination.”
“Rather, it would require the Legislature to establish procedures through which local governments may choose to grant additional exemptions in the future ‘up to’ the full assessed valuation,” Frank writes.
Frank also points out that the ballot summary omits the fact that the amendment proposes “major change[s] in the function of government” by giving the Legislature the right to control ad valorem tax spending, thus changing the home rule powers local governments currently enjoy under Florida’s constitution.