TALLAHASSEE — A Leon County judge ruled Monday that the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment expanding homestead property tax exemptions are defective and must be rewritten.
Circuit Judge John C. Cooper granted summary judgment to plaintiffs challenging House Joint Resolution 1F, the measure set for the November ballot. The ruling does not remove the amendment from the ballot. It requires the attorney general to submit corrected ballot language within 10 days that more accurately describes the proposal’s effects.
The court specifically rejected the ballot summary’s claim that the amendment is “Ensuring funding for core services.” Cooper wrote that the amendment “does not ‘ensure’ funding” for public safety or other services. Instead, “by substantially reducing the local property tax base, the proposed amendment is likely to decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services.”
The order cited Revenue Estimating Conference projections showing local non-school property tax revenues would drop by nearly $5 billion in the first year of the higher exemption and nearly $9 billion the following year, with a recurring annual impact approaching $12 billion.
Those findings correspond with concerns raised by two Republican candidates for Indian River County Commission District 2 and by the Florida Sheriffs Association.
Sebastian Vice Mayor Bob McPartlan, who is running for the District 2 seat, has said he supports tax reform but opposes the amendment in its current form.
“I support meaningful tax reform, but I do not support the property tax amendment as currently written,” McPartlan said. “It was developed quickly and without thorough analysis of its fiscal impact on Florida’s 67 counties. There is also no clear contingency plan to address the resulting revenue shortfalls.”
Fellow District 2 candidate Brooks Robinson has also questioned whether the amendment delivers what supporters claim.
“Amendment 3 does not deliver as advertised. It does not eliminate property taxes nor does it create a process to eliminate property taxes,” Robinson said. “While those with a homesteaded property will see tax relief, it will not provide meaningful tax relief for residents in multi-family or other non-homesteaded properties (e.g. communities where dwellings are built on rented land). The stated restriction on ad-valorem tax usage is overly broad and inclusive of catch-all provisions.”
Robinson said he expects many local governments to respond by increasing non-ad-valorem assessments and service fees, which he described as more regressive and harder for low- and fixed-income residents to absorb. He also expressed concern that the additional complexity would make it more difficult for voters to hold local officials accountable.
“A government closest to the people is best,” Robinson said. “Each county should have the right to set the taxing and spending policies their residents want.”
The Florida Sheriffs Association issued a statement Monday saying it is “significantly concerned” with Amendment 3.
“The Florida Sheriffs Association is significantly concerned with Constitutional Amendment 3, which potentially allows Tallahassee to control your local budgets, creates longer law enforcement response times, limits communities’ abilities to provide road repairs and stormwater removal — these are a few things voters deserve to be aware of,” the association said.
The proposed amendment would raise the homestead exemption on non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 for qualifying longtime residents, with inflation adjustments afterward. Newer residents would face a five-year wait for the full higher exemption. It would also lower the annual assessment increase cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5% and restrict how counties and cities may spend remaining property tax revenue.
The court made clear it was not weighing the wisdom of the amendment itself. “Deciding whether the proposed amendment is a good idea or not is the exclusive domain of the voters,” Cooper wrote. The only issue was whether the existing ballot language fairly and accurately informed voters. The judge found it did not.
The attorney general must now prepare revised wording. Any challenge to the new language must be filed within 10 days of its submission to the Department of State.