Florida tax exemption plan heads to voters
If voters approve, the plan would increase the state’s homestead exemption, lowering property tax bills for primary homeowners.
- A Tallahassee judge ruled that the title and summary for a property tax ballot initiative are defective and must be rewritten.
- Florida’s Attorney General has 10 days to redraft the language for the proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment 3.
- The amendment, which would increase the state’s homestead exemption, will remain on the November ballot for voters to decide.
A Tallahassee judge said the title and summary for the November ballot initiative to reduce homeowners’ property tax, originally proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, is “clearly and conclusively defective” and ordered it rewritten.
The proposed state constitutional amendment, however, will still be on the ballot; Circuit Judge David Frank made clear he wasn’t asked to remove it and had no legal authority to do so.
As Frank wrote in an Aug. 3 order on three consolidated lawsuits challenging the measure: “Specifically, (the) Constitution and (state law) require this Court to … determine whether the language fairly informs the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment and does not mislead. They fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten.”
Attorney General James Uthmeier now must redraft Amendment 3’s title and summary language. It will need no less than 60% approval from voters statewide to be added to the Florida Constitution.
In his order, which was docketed shortly before 11 p.m., Frank said the title – “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” – “is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral. It advocates a policy position: to stop excessive property taxes.”
He goes on to cite a laundry list of problems with the summary, in part saying it “sets forth three political taglines – ‘Ensuring funding for core services,’ ‘Protecting small businesses,’ and ‘Ensuring fairness for Florida residents’ – giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal.
“But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption,” he added.
Uthmeier has “10 days (to) prepare and submit to the Department of State a revised ballot title or ballot summary that corrects the deficiencies identified by the Court ….” At an appearance in Panama City Beach, he said his team “is looking at that (ruling) … we’ll have updates soon.”
What does the amendment do?
Among other things, Amendment 3 would increase the state’s homestead exemption from the current $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and then to $250,000 in 2028.
In a special legislative session in June, state lawmakers modified the measure from DeSantis before placing it on the ballot, however. Among other things, they:
- Carved out school taxes from the higher homestead exemption.
- Protected funding for constitutional county officers, such as property appraisers, tax collectors, supervisors of elections, clerks of court.
- Lowered the annual assessment cap on non-homesteaded property (including commercial) from 10% to 5%, meaning taxable values on those properties could rise more slowly from year to year.
- Got rid of a state trust fund meant to cushion local revenue losses.
Cities and counties have been sounding alarms over the proposal, intended to deliver relief to homeowners even as it likely will force difficult local budget choices. Cities and counties would lose $5 billion in tax revenue next year and almost $12 billion by 2031, according to state economists.
It has sparked three lawsuits, including one spearheaded by two former state lawmakers: Republican Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg and Democrat Al Lawson of Tallahassee. They all were consolidated for review by Frank.
“This case was never about stopping tax relief. It was about stopping misleading ballot language,” Brandes said in a statement to the USA TODAY Network – Florida. “The ballot box is not a place for political advertising.”
He added: “Voters deserve facts, not slogans. They deserve truth, not marketing … Today wasn’t a victory for plaintiffs. It was a victory for every Floridian who believes the truth still matters.”
The Orlando-based Florida Policy Institute, which opposes Amendment 3 because of its potential impact on public services, said it was important for Uthmeier to follow the judge’s guidance.
Uthmeier is an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who spent more than a year pushing for a property tax ballot measure, but said he will not lead any effort to pass the measure crafted by the Republican-controlled state Legislature.
“Floridians deserve accurate information on what is at stake and we urge Attorney General Uthmeier to respond to the judge’s order and strip out the extreme bias in Amendment 3’s ballot language,” said Sadaf Knight, CEO of the Florida Policy Institute.
Holly Bullard, chief strategy and development officer at FPI, is chairing an organization urging Floridians to vote against Amendment 3 in November.
Floridians for Shared Prosperity, a coalition of unions, non-profits and community groups, warns the measure will shift the cost of public services away from homeowners and more onto renters and businesses. The amount of money available for critical services is also certain to shrink if the measure passes, which has drawn fire and police unions into the fight against the amendment.
“It would result in reduced or eliminated public services – longer emergency response times, rural hospitals shuttered, libraries closing, and more expensive childcare and summer camps, to name just a few ways Amendment 3 would erode Floridians’ quality of life,” Knight said.
Jamie Cole, a Fort Lauderdale attorney representing a group called “Save Our Voters,” argued July 29 against the Legislature’s ballot language before Frank. He said the judge’s ruling makes it clear what Uthmeier must do.
“It’s pretty clear, in our view, that this ballot title and summary is not fair, and it’s inaccurate,” Cole said. “The judge found it and hopefully, the attorney general will…not contest that and rather than rewrite something that is as bad or even worse he’ll follow what the judge said and fix these problems and do a fair and accurate ballot statement.
“We’re here to help, if the attorney general would like our input,” Cole added, “Because when the attorney general rewrites it, we have 10 days to challenge it again.”
(This story was updated to add new information.)
Portions of this story were previously reported. Jim Rosica is a member of the USA TODAY Network – Florida Capital Bureau. Reach him at [email protected] and follow him on X.com: @JimRosicaFL.
