UPDATE: Judge Orders Rewrite of Florida Property Tax Amendment’s Language
A Leon County circuit judge heard arguments over whether a proposed property tax cut amendment scheduled for Florida’s November ballot uses misleading language intended to influence voters.
Three groups of plaintiffs, including former local elected officials and former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes, argue that the ballot title and summary approved by the Republican-led Legislature in June rely on “emotional and political rhetoric” rather than neutral language.
The proposed constitutional amendment, HJR 1F, would increase Florida’s homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 next year and to $250,000 the following year. The expanded exemption would not apply to property taxes collected to fund K-12 public schools.
The measure also would reduce the maximum annual increase in assessed values for non-homesteaded properties from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Attorney Jamie Cole, representing opponents of the amendment, argued that its title, “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes,” improperly encourages voters to support the proposal by using biased language.
“The ballot question, the thing that the voters see when they vote, has to be fair and it has to be accurate,” Cole said. “It should not be political rhetoric, it should not be emotional language … it should not hide the ball and it should not mislead.”
Cole cited a 1994 Florida Supreme Court ruling involving a proposed “Save Our Everglades” amendment. In that case, the court found the title misleading because it suggested the Everglades was already lost or in danger and needed to be “saved” through the amendment.
Benjamin Gibson, an attorney representing the state, argued that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the ballot language is legally defective. He said the title is not misleading because it identifies what supporters view as the threat facing homeowners: excessive property taxes.
Gibson also rejected arguments that the amendment would effectively give the Legislature veto power over local spending by limiting property tax revenue to infrastructure, education, public safety and other major government services.
“The ballot title and summary does not need to explain unknowns or hypothetical consequences,” Gibson said.
The amendment followed a year-long campaign by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who traveled across Florida highlighting the growth in local property tax collections during the past six years.
DeSantis, however, criticized lawmakers for modifying his proposal to exclude taxes used to fund public schools. He has said he plans to vote for the amendment but will not actively campaign for it.
Some local government officials have organized opposition to the proposal, warning that it could result in significant budget cuts if it receives the 60 percent voter approval required for passage.
Leon Circuit Judge David Frank did not issue an immediate ruling after the two-hour hearing.
Should Frank find the ballot language defective, Attorney General James Uthmeier would have 10 days to revise it. The case faces a tight timeline because mail ballots for the general election are expected to begin printing near the end of August.
Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican who filed one of the lawsuits challenging the amendment, said the ballot language clearly advocates for the proposal.
“I don’t think there is anybody who can say when this amendment was drafted that it’s not partial and it’s not advocacy,” Brandes said. “All we are asking the court to do is follow the law and follow what the Constitution lays out when it relates to advocacy.”
DeSantis has warned opponents that a successful challenge could allow Uthmeier to rewrite the language in a way they might find even less favorable.
“We’ll win at the trial court, but if we don’t then you’ve got to go and do a quick appeal,” DeSantis said after the lawsuits were filed. “If, somehow, you lose on that, then they say the attorney general writes the language. I’d say to some of these big government advocates, ‘Be careful what you wish for.’”
