Actions

Lawsuit challenges Florida property tax ballot language as 'biased' & 'misleading'

Suit asks judge to order Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite language before voters see the measure in November

File Photo

By: Forrest Saunders

Posted

and last updated

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A new lawsuit was filed Thursday challenging the property-tax amendment Florida lawmakers recently approved for the November ballot.

The complaint, filed in Leon County by a voter advocacy group and two registered voters, argues the ballot language is "biased" and "misleading" — accusing lawmakers of using campaign-style phrases like "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes," "protecting small businesses" and "ensuring fairness."

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Florida property tax referendum faces potential legal battles

Florida property tax referendum faces potential legal battles

The plaintiffs also say the summary overstates the proposal by suggesting it guarantees funding for core services, fully eliminates non-school homestead taxes and immediately exempts the first $250,000 of a home's value, when the filing argues the initial exemption would be $150,000 in 2027.

The lawsuit is asking a judge to declare the wording unconstitutional and order Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite within 10 days.

On June 2, lawmakers passed legislation to raise the homestead exemption for homeowners to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 and create a framework for full exemption over time. The amendment will appear on the November 2026 General Election Ballot for approval by Florida voters. It will require approval from at least 60% of voters to become law.

The title approved by the Legislature reads: “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.” Attorney Jamie Cole, who represents the plaintiffs, argues that wording sounds more like political advertising than a neutral summary.

“A ballot amendment is supposed to be fair, neutral, and not biased, and it's supposed to be accurate,” Cole said.

Cole successfully challenged a similar property-tax amendment nearly two decades ago. In 2007, a judge found the ballot language for a proposed “Super Exemption” misleading and ordered the measure removed from the ballot.

Cole said accurate wording matters because many voters will not study the full legal text before casting a ballot.

“A lot of people just go and read for the first time what the ballot is — the ballot summary is,” Cole said. “That has to be fair. If that's not fair, the whole system is going to fall apart.”

The new lawsuit disputes several claims included in this year’s summary.

It challenges language saying the amendment would ensure funding for core services, arguing the measure does not guarantee money for police, firefighters, schools or infrastructure. It also disputes the claim that the proposal would protect small businesses, noting the amendment does not specifically mention them. Instead, the proposal would limit future assessment increases on non-homesteaded property more broadly.

The complaint also argues the summary goes too far when it says the amendment requires a schedule for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteaded properties. According to the plaintiffs, the text instead creates a process allowing local governments to provide additional exemptions in the future.

“This is just a very inaccurate and very biased ballot question,” Cole said.

Democrats raised similar concerns during the June special session, arguing the proposal could shift costs rather than eliminate them.

“Absolutely, we're concerned about the language,” House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell said just prior to final approval. “You consider that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing, because the Republicans are trying to couch this as, ‘Let's Save Our Homes,’ but the reality is that this is hurting our local communities.”

Republican supporters have argued local governments can absorb the reductions and that homeowners would receive meaningful relief.

After the measure passed, Republican Rep. Toby Overdorf acknowledged a legal challenge was possible.

“Any time that you have any kind of an issue that passes the House and the Senate, certainly there's that option,” Overdorf said. “We'll see what happens.”

The legal fight comes before the political one. Even if the proposal survives court scrutiny, supporters would still need to persuade at least 60% of voters to approve it in November.

Earlier this week, WPTV spoke to former state Sen. Jeff Brandes, who outlined five possible legal challenges to the referendum, which included ballot language.

Read the full lawsuit below: