TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Leon County circuit judge heard arguments Wednesday over whether the ballot title and summary for Florida's Amendment 3 property-tax proposal give voters a fair explanation of the measure — or amount to a political sales pitch.
Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank heard arguments in three consolidated lawsuits challenging the title and summary scheduled to appear on November ballots. Frank did not immediately rule, instead ordering attorneys to submit proposed decisions by 5 p.m. Monday.
WATCH WPTV'S COVERAGE BELOW:
The challengers include the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, several former mayors, former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes and former Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson Jr.
They argue the amendment's title — "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes" — and phrases promising to benefit taxpayers, protect small businesses, preserve core services and ensure fairness are biased, inaccurate and designed to persuade voters.
Plaintiffs' attorney Jamie Cole told the court the language crosses a line.
"This is probably the worst example of a biased ballot question and an inaccurate ballot question that we've seen," Cole said. "This is really just a political campaign flyer."
Cole argued that "save" is an emotionally loaded word suggesting homeowners face an immediate threat. He pointed to a previous Florida Supreme Court decision rejecting a proposed amendment titled "Save Our Everglades" and noted that the state's existing Save Our Homes assessment cap was originally presented to voters in 1992 under the more neutral title "Homestead Valuation Limitation."
The current Amendment 3 proposal would not change that 3% Save Our Homes assessment cap for homesteaded properties.
Brandes, speaking outside the courtroom, said the language gives voters the benefits without fully explaining the potential costs or consequences.
"They've rolled a live grenade into the Constitution here with this amendment, and people need to be very cognizant of what's going on," Brandes said.
Challengers dispute promises in summary
The official ballot summary says the amendment would ensure funding for core services by requiring local governments to spend remaining property-tax revenue on public needs such as public safety, schools, infrastructure and natural resources.
Plaintiffs argued that restricting how remaining revenue may be spent does not guarantee that enough money will remain to fund those services.
They also challenged the promise of protecting small businesses. The amendment would reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, but that change would apply broadly to commercial property, rental homes and second homes — not specifically to small businesses.
Another dispute centers on language promising a "schedule for full elimination" of non-school homestead property taxes. The amendment's full text instead directs lawmakers to create a uniform procedure allowing counties and municipalities to increase the exemption up to a home's remaining assessed value. A state fiscal analysis notes that the proposal sets no timeline for those future increases.
Plaintiffs also argue the summary fails to explain a potentially significant shift in control over local property-tax revenue. The amendment would add categories describing how cities and counties may spend those dollars while allowing the Legislature to prohibit some expenditures through state law.
At one point, Frank questioned whether disagreement among the plaintiffs about the effect of that provision supported their broader argument that the measure is unclear.
"If the lawyers for both these groups can't figure out what it is, doesn't that sort of support that argument?" Frank said.
State says voters can understand the proposal
Attorneys representing the attorney general, secretary of state and Department of State urged Frank to uphold the language.
State attorney Ben Gibson argued the title and summary must be read together and that Florida law requires them to explain only the amendment's chief purpose — not every possible consequence or implementation detail.
"The summary is supposed to be written for voters, not for lawyers," Gibson said.
Gibson argued the title identifies what homes would supposedly be saved from — excessive property taxes — and therefore does not leave voters to imagine an undefined threat. He also said the summary makes clear that only "remaining" property-tax revenue would be reserved for core services, rather than guaranteeing a particular amount of funding.
The state further argued that small businesses would benefit from the lower non-homestead assessment cap even if other property owners receive the same protection.
Ultimately, Gibson said, the challengers must prove the title and summary are "clearly and conclusively defective," not merely that different wording could have been better.
What Amendment 3 would do
The Legislature approved the proposal during a June special session, passing it 75-26 in the House and 30-9 in the Senate. Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment, it was not subject to the governor's signature or veto. It needs support from at least 60% of voters in November.
For people who establish permanent Florida residency by Dec. 31, the proposal would increase the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. It would be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2029.
People establishing residency after that cutoff would receive a smaller exemption for 4 years before becoming eligible for the larger amount in the fifth year. School district property taxes would remain unaffected.
The amendment would also reduce the assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%.
A July analysis by Florida's Revenue Estimating Conference projected the quantifiable portions of the amendment would reduce local property-tax collections by nearly $4.93 billion in the 2027-28 fiscal year. The modeled recurring impact is approximately $11.83 billion annually, although the estimate does not account for future policy changes by local governments or referendums authorized by the amendment.
Ballot deadline approaches
Election officials told the court that county supervisors may begin printing ballots Aug. 27, adding urgency to the case and any appeal.
If Frank upholds the current language, it would remain on the ballot unless an appellate court intervenes. If he finds all of the ballot statements defective and appeals are declined or exhausted, Florida law gives Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to submit corrected wording.
Any rewritten title or summary could also face another expedited challenge before the same court.
