The ballot language for the proposed constitutional amendment that could dramatically reduce the property tax burden on Floridians’ primary homes is biased, misleading and unfit to go on the ballot, a Leon County judge ruled in a court order issued late Monday night. 

Circuit Judge David Frank found that the title and summary of the ballot measure passed by state lawmakers during a whirlwind special session – and christened “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” – is “clearly and conclusively defective.”

Frank wrote that the language of the proposed ballot measure known as Amendment 3 was riddled with “political rhetoric,” “emotional” appeals and “factually inaccurate” statements, and that the title was “more akin to a political slogan” than the “fair and neutral” policy proposal that voters are owed under the constitution. 

“To be clear, plaintiffs are not asking this Court to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot. That is not an option. The authority of the Court in this instance is expressly circumscribed,” Frank wrote.

“Deciding whether the proposed amendment is a good idea or not is the exclusive domain of the voters. The ballot title and summary simply must pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot,” he added.

In his ruling, Frank singled out what he said was the measure’s failure to communicate to voters a “major” proposed change in the function of government – the amendment’s language purporting to “change the constitutional baseline of city and county power” by enshrining in the constitution “for the first time the Legislature’s right to control ad valorem tax spending.”

Under a process outlined in state law, the ballot proposal now goes to Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who has 10 days to rewrite the language of the measure, which critics fear could blow a hole in the budgets of local governments – and fundamentally change the flow of power in the Sunshine State. 

Attorneys for the coalition of voter advocates and former elected officials who brought the lawsuit will then have the opportunity to review and challenge the language. After that, subject to further judicial review, it could go before the voters in November. Supervisors of elections face a Sept. 19 deadline to send those ballots to military and overseas voters, leaving little room for a protracted legal challenge.

Attorneys for the state have dismissed the arguments in the lawsuit filed by former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes, former Democratic Congressman Al Lawson, the group Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, and two former South Florida mayors.

A spokesperson for Gov. Ron DeSantis – who for a year has been leading the charge to do away with property taxes – did not immediately respond to a request for comment. DeSantis has distanced himself from the measure after state lawmakers amended the language he proposed. A spokesperson for Secretary of State Cord Byrd said the department does not comment on pending litigation. Questioned by reporters at a press conference in Panama City Beach on Tuesday, Uthmeier said his office is giving the measure “a hard look,” before adding that he plans to vote for the amendment. The “most important” aspect of the measure, he said, is it would further concentrate power in Tallahassee.

“Right now the property tax structure is anchored in the constitution where it takes a vote of the citizenry to change it. But this would open the door to allow our Legislature to make adjustments every year or so where adjustments need to be made,” Uthmeier said.

Flanked by uniformed law enforcement officers, Uthmeier acknowledged concerns from the state’s first responders associations that the proposal threatens to devastate communities’ abilities to fund public safety – for many municipalities, their single largest expense.

“There would need to be legislative changes made to protect those budgets and make sure that we’re not dropping the ball on our most important job as servants of Florida, and that is keeping people safe,” Uthmeier said.

Brandes – who has become arguably the most prominent critic of the proposal within the GOP – said the ruling was a win for “every Florida voter.”

“Today, the court drew a line. The ballot box is not a place for political advertising,” Brandes wrote in a social media post. “This case was never about whether property taxes should be lower. It was about whether the government can MARKET a constitutional amendment instead of HONESTLY explaining it to voters,” he added.

If approved by 60% of the voters in November, the one-size-fits-all proposal would increase Florida’s current $50,000 exemption for taxing primary homes – known as homestead properties – to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, regardless of household income, age of the homeowners, or the median property value in a given locality. This would eliminate property taxes entirely for homes valued below that threshold, except for school-related taxes, which were carved out of the proposal. 

With no alternative funding mechanism offered, local officials say the cuts could force them to drastically reduce core services, including police and fire protection, or increase special assessments, and fees to cover the difference – or compel them to turn to the Legislature to beg for funds to keep their communities afloat, leaving local control over spending priorities even more vulnerable to the political whims of Tallahassee.

In some of the state’s smallest municipalities, it’s an open question among some residents whether their towns can survive the sweeping reduction in property tax revenues, which for centuries have served as a cornerstone of local government funding. More than 100 cities across the state would see at least 90% of their homesteaded taxable value taken off the tax rolls, because so many of their properties are assessed at less than $250,000, according to an analysis by the Florida League of Cities.

“The debate over property taxes will continue, as it should,” Brandes said. “But from this point forward, that debate should be based on an honest description of what’s actually in the amendment.”

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to include statements from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

Kate Payne is The Florida Trib’s state government reporter. She can be reached at kate.payne@floridatrib.org.