TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The campaign against Florida’s sweeping property-tax amendment is expanding by the day. A comparable effort to pass it, so far, barely exists.
Groups representing police, firefighters, sheriffs, hospitals, cities and counties have all raised alarms about Amendment 3, warning the proposed tax cut could hollow out local budgets and jeopardize police, fire, emergency medical and other services.
WATCH FORREST SAUNDERS' COVERAGE BELOW:
One of the most forceful warnings came from Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, one of Florida’s highest-profile conservative sheriffs.
“It’s a train wreck,” Judd said during a Tuesday news conference.
“This is the most ludicrous piece of unresearched stuff I’ve seen,” he added.
The Florida Sheriffs Association said it is “significantly concerned” about the proposal. The Florida State Fraternal Order of Police has formally opposed it, while the Florida Professional Firefighters and Florida Fire Chiefs Association have warned that it could undermine public-safety funding without providing a replacement revenue source.
Judd said sheriffs support meaningful tax relief—but not through Amendment 3.
“Make no mistake about it: The Florida sheriffs believe that we can have meaningful tax savings for the people of the state of Florida, but this instrument in November is not the instrument to do that,” he said.
The organized opposition grew again Wednesday when the No On Three campaign announced endorsements from 31 Democratic state lawmakers, including House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell and Senate Democratic Leader Lori Berman.
“It will be a tax increase, or we’ll all lose services that we rely on every day,” campaign spokesperson Jackson Peel said.
What Amendment 3 would do
The Republican-controlled Legislature placed Amendment 3 on the November ballot during a June special session.
Under the proposal approved by lawmakers, the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes would increase to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. School-district property taxes would remain unaffected.
The full increase would immediately apply only to homeowners who establish permanent Florida residency by Dec. 31, 2026. Newer residents would receive a smaller exemption for four years before qualifying for the larger benefit in their fifth year.
Amendment 3 would also reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead properties, including rentals and commercial buildings, from 10% to 5%. It would restrict how cities and counties may spend remaining property-tax revenue and require lawmakers to create a process through which local governments could further increase the exemption.
A state fiscal analysis estimates that the amendment’s quantifiable provisions would reduce local property-tax collections by nearly $4.93 billion during the 2027-28 fiscal year. The projected annual impact eventually reaches approximately $11.83 billion.
The analysis does not estimate the additional effect of any future effort to fully exempt homesteaded properties from county or municipal taxes.
Support—but little enthusiasm
Despite the increasingly organized opposition, no comparable statewide “Yes On Three” campaign has publicly materialized. The amendment has Republican support, but few prominent GOP leaders appear eager to become its champion.
Gov. Ron DeSantis called the special session that produced the proposal and has said he will vote for it. But he has also made clear that the Legislature’s final product fell short of what he wanted.
“I don’t think you’re going to see me leading that on this particular proposal, because while I support it, I do think it’s not all that I was hoping to see,” DeSantis said in June.
Attorney General James Uthmeier has similarly paired support for tax relief with concern about the potential consequences.
“We need to get money back in the pockets, but let me be crystal clear,” Uthmeier said, Tuesday. “I in no way want to do anything to jeopardize funding to go towards public safety.”
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott initially appeared skeptical as well.
“I’d love to get rid of property taxes,” Scott told Fox Business in May. “Unfortunately, you’ve got to think about, OK, so what are you going to replace it with?”
Scott later announced that he would vote for Amendment 3.
That has created an unusual political dynamic: The amendment was placed on the ballot by a Republican Legislature and is supported on paper by several leading Republicans, but most of the organized energy surrounding it is coming from opponents.
Poll shows a fragile path to passage
That imbalance could prove decisive because Amendment 3 needs support from at least 60% of voters to pass.
A July University of North Florida poll found 61% support when likely voters were told the amendment would begin phasing out non-school homestead taxes and restrict local property-tax spending to core services.
That is only one percentage point above the constitutional threshold—and within the poll’s 3.8-point margin of error.
Support fell to 45%, with 47% opposed, when respondents were also told that estimates suggested the proposal could create an approximately $11.8 billion municipal budget shortfall over its first two years.
“These numbers show how important the final ballot language will be in determining the outcome of this amendment,” UNF pollster Sean Freeder said.
Exactly what voters will read is now changing.
Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank ruled this week that the title and summary written by lawmakers were biased, misleading and factually inaccurate. He declared the language “clearly and conclusively defective” and ordered Uthmeier to submit a replacement within 10 days.
The ruling does not remove Amendment 3 from the ballot. It changes only how the proposal will be described to voters.
But with the amendment hovering near the threshold required for passage—and its organized opponents adding new allies—that rewrite could help determine whether Florida voters see Amendment 3 as meaningful tax relief or, as Judd put it, a train wreck.
