A judge in Leon County is ordering the state attorney general’s office to write a more accurate and neutral summary of a property tax relief proposal Florida voters will read and decide on in the November general election.
In the order released Aug. 3, Circuit Judge David Frank wrote that the title and summary of the ballot statement provided by the Florida Legislature were “clearly and conclusively defective.”
The property tax measure will still head to the ballot in November, but the judge said the wording needs to change.
“Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination,” Frank wrote. “The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.”
The attorney general’s office has 10 days from the order to submit a revised ballot title and summary that corrects deficiencies identified by the court. Frank also ordered the secretary of state not to place the language in its current form on the ballot.
A special session of the Florida Legislature on June 2 led to the approval of House Joint Resolution 1F. Passing along party lines, the resolution proposes amendments to the State Constitution, which requires 60% voter approval, to increase the homestead exemption from the current $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. The exemption would be indexed to inflation in 2029.
The measure also limits assessment increases on nonhomesteaded property, such as businesses and secondary homes, from 10% to 5% per year. Municipalities and counties would be limited to using remaining property tax dollars for “core needs,” including law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical service. Ad valorem dollars would be unaffected for school districts.
By June 16, the legislature filed a proposed ballot statement with the secretary of state titled “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.” The statement contained several paragraphs summarizing the “benefits” to Florida taxpayers.
On June 29 and June 30, challenges were filed with the court with similar arguments that the ballot was misleading and written in a way to persuade voters as opposed to explaining it in a neutral way. The challenges came from the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni, former Key Biscayne Mayor Thomas Davey, former South Miami Mayor Thomas Stoddard, former Democratic Rep. Al Lawson and former state Sen. Jeff Brandes.
At a July 29 hearing, the plaintiffs’ attorney called the ballot language a “political flier” while the state’s attorney stated the language accurately reflects the measure’s purpose.
Frank ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, and his order came with some criticisms over the ballot title and summary. Specifically, Frank wrote that the ballot title was “akin to a political slogan.”
“The use of the phrase ‘Save Our Homes’ is also misleading. Indeed, the proposed amendment has nothing to do with ‘Save Our Homes,’ which is an existing, well known and popular cap on increases to annual assessed values of homesteaded properties,” the order reads. “Thus the reference to ‘Save Our Homes’ misleads voters into believing they are being asked to reaffirm a popular constitutional provision completely unrelated to the amendment.”
Additionally, the ballot title suggests to voters that the proposed measure would prevent increases in the amount of property taxes that would need to be paid for their homes. The court said that premise isn’t necessarily the case.
“If a voter rents his or her home, the property tax to be paid on the home would not benefit from the increased homestead exemption and would not be subject to a lower tax but instead would likely be subject to higher property tax (as a result of the likely increase in millage rate) that could be viewed as excessive. That higher tax would be paid by the landlord and passed on to the voter tenant in the form of higher rent.”
Frank wrote that the ballot summary contains three political taglines — “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents.” To the contrary of ensuring core services, he wrote that by reducing the local property tax base, the proposed amendment is likely to “decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services.”
The Florida Sheriff’s Association recently shared its concern with the constitutional amendment, stating it potentially allows Tallahassee to control local budgets while creating longer law enforcement response times.
If the constitutional amendment proposed by the joint resolution is approved by the voters, the Revenue Estimating Conference estimated that the cash effects on local non-school property tax revenues would be $4.95 billion less in fiscal year 2027-28 (with the $150,000 exemption in place) and $8.78 billion less in fiscal year 2028-29 (with the $250,000 exemption in place). The recurring effect in all years is estimated to be $11.86 billion less on local non-school property tax revenues, which represents the cash impact in fiscal year 2031-32.
Regarding the measure “protecting small business,” Frank wrote that the proposed amendment provides no protection to small businesses, or nonhomesteaded properties, from the expected higher taxes resulting from possible increases in millage rates necessary to offset the loss of a tax base caused by the amendment.
Frank also notes that the ballot summary concludes with “ensuring fairness for Florida residents,” when in fact the proposal discriminates against Florida residents who rent their homes by only providing tax relief to owners of homesteaded properties.
Frank went on to say the ballot statement defectively omits that cities and counties have broad home rule power to determine how to spend ad valorem tax dollars under the constitution. He wrote the amendment purports to change the constitutional baseline of city and county power by placing in the constitution for the first time the state Legislature’s right to control ad valorem spending.
With the order providing only 10 days for the rewrite, Gov. Ron DeSantis said on Thursday that the attorney general’s office is rewriting the ballot title and summary.
“I’ve actually seen some of the draft. It’s going to be very clear for voters what’s on there,” he said. “It addresses what the judge said, even though we don’t agree with the legal analysis. People are going to know you’re going to get tax relief, you’re going to get increased homestead exemption if you’re for it,” he said.
