‘More akin to a political slogan’: Judge orders rewrite of property tax amendment’s ballot language
Florida’s big property tax measure is still headed to the November ballot. Just not in the Legislature’s words.
In an 18-page order, Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank declared the ballot title and summary for Amendment 3 “clearly and conclusively defective.”
(Read the full order here.)
The order enjoins Secretary of State Cord Byrd from placing the current language on the General Election ballot and gives Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to draft a replacement that describes the amendment rather than campaigns for it.
The amendment itself, passed as HJR 1F on June 2, survives. Frank was explicit that striking the amendment “is not an option” and that whether it’s a good idea “is the exclusive domain of the voters.”
What can’t survive, he ruled, is a ballot statement that “does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it endorses it and diverts voters from its actual effect.”
Start with the title: “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.” Frank found it “more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral.” The word “save,” he wrote, is rhetoric designed to elicit an emotional response — the same reasoning the Florida Supreme Court used to reject “Save Our Everglades” in 1994.
Worse, invoking “Save Our Homes” borrows the brand of the popular 1992 assessment cap, a provision this amendment “does not impact … at all,” misleading voters “into believing they are being asked to reaffirm a popular constitutional provision completely unrelated to the amendment.”
Frank noted the irony that the actual 1992 ballot title was the studiously neutral “Homestead Valuation Limitation.”
The summary fared no better. Its structure, “This amendment benefits Florida taxpayers by:” followed by four taglines, is “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation.” The order then goes tagline by tagline:
— “Ensuring funding for core services”: The amendment doesn’t ensure funding for anything, Frank wrote; by shrinking the local tax base it “is likely to decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services.” A footnote cites the Revenue Estimating Conference’s numbers, via the House’s final bill analysis: a $4.95 billion hit to local non-school property tax revenue in Fiscal Year 2027-28, $8.78 billion the following year, and $11.86 billion recurring.
— “Protecting small businesses”: Small businesses appear “nowhere in the proposed amendment,” which actually lowers the assessment cap on all non-homestead property from 10% to 5%.
— “Exempts the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value”: Not in Year 1, it doesn’t. The exemption is $150,000 in 2027 and doesn’t reach $250,000 until 2028.
— “Ensuring fairness for Florida residents”: The order notes renters get no relief and would “likely pay more when their landlords pass on the increased property taxes resulting from higher millage rates.” The summary also misstates who is covered by the five-year residency wait, and when the bigger exemption kicks in for them.
Jackson Peel, Communications Director for Save Our Services — No on 3, issued a statement praising the ruling.
“We applaud the court’s ruling, and we encourage the Attorney General to give the voters clear, fair, and honest language on their ballots as the law requires. The people of our state need real relief from Florida’s affordability crisis, but Amendment 3 is a handout to the owners of multimillion dollar homes while working families and seniors are left to pay more through other taxes or face major cuts to local services we all rely on,” Peel said.
“Floridians deserve to know that Amendment 3 would force every community in Florida to decide between raising other taxes or cutting funding for local services like hospitals, ambulances, fire rescue, and programs that help kids. We deserve the right to make decisions about our taxes locally, and communities should be free to fund programs as they see fit.”
The ruling caps three consolidated lawsuits brought by the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni, former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey, former South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson and former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes.
“This case was never about whether property taxes should be lower. It was about whether the government can use the ballot to sell an amendment instead of explaining it,” Brandes said. “The court said no.”
“Our Constitution requires ballot language to inform voters, not persuade them. Every Floridian deserves to know exactly what they’re voting on before they cast a ballot. This ruling isn’t a victory for one side of the property tax debate. It’s a victory for honest elections, transparent government, and informed voters.”
At the July 29 hearing, plaintiffs’ attorney Jamie Cole called the summary “basically a political flyer”; the state’s attorney, Benjamin Gibson, argued the title accurately reflects the measure’s purpose. Frank sided with the flyer theory.
Under the order, Uthmeier’s rewrite goes to the Department of State, which will assign a new designating number and ship the revised language to all 67 Supervisors of Elections.
Frank retained jurisdiction, and any challenge to the rewrite must come within 10 days. The state can appeal. Mail ballots print in late August.
The court’s message boils down to a single line of Florida Supreme Court precedent Frank quotes early: a ballot summary cannot “fly under false colors” or “hide the ball.”
The Legislature wanted to sell voters on saving their homes. For the next 10 days, at least, the only thing getting saved is the adjectives.
Here’s the ruling:
___
Ed. note: This story was drafted with assistance from AI. Editorial judgment, sourcing, and final review were performed by Peter Schorsch and the Florida Politics editorial team.
