TALLAHASSEE — A Leon Circuit Court judge heard arguments Wednesday regarding whether the proposed constitutional amendment for a property tax cut, scheduled for the November ballot, contains misleading language. Three groups of plaintiffs, including former local government elected officials and a former Republican legislator, contend that the title and ballot summary approved by the GOP-led Legislature in June utilize "emotional and political rhetoric" designed to sway voters rather than provide accurate information.
Legal Arguments Over Ballot Clarity
The proposed constitutional amendment, designated HJR 1F, would increase the current $50,000 homestead exemption to $150,000 next year and further raise it to $250,000 in subsequent years. However, this exemption does not apply to the portion of property tax bills levied for K-12 public schools. Another provision lowers the cap on annual assessments of non-homesteaded properties from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Attorney Jamie Cole argued that the amendment's title, "Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes," employs biased language in violation of previous court rulings. He cited a Florida Supreme Court opinion from 1994 regarding a proposed "Save Our Everglades" amendment, which was deemed misleading because it implied the Everglades were lost or in danger. Cole stated that ballot questions must be fair and accurate, avoiding political rhetoric or emotional language that hides facts.
State Defense and Political Context
Benjamin Gibson, an attorney representing the state, argued that the burden is on plaintiffs to prove the summary is defective. He maintained that the title accurately spells out the danger of excessive taxes to homesteads and noted that the ballot does not need to explain unknown or hypothetical consequences. The measure was largely driven by a year-long campaign by Governor Ron DeSantis, who highlighted surging property tax revenues over the last six years.
DeSantis has criticized the Legislature for altering his original proposal to exempt school taxes before passing it. While he stated he will vote for the measure, he indicated he would not actively campaign for it. Some local government officials are campaigning against the amendment due to fears of massive budget cuts if it receives the 60 percent voter support required for passage, as noted by Telemundo.
Implications for November Election
Judge David Frank did not immediately rule from the bench after the two-hour hearing. If he finds part of the ballot measure defective, Attorney General James Uthmeier has 10 days to correct the issues. This timeline presents a potential time crunch, as general election mail ballots are scheduled to begin printing at the end of August.
Former Sen. Jeff Brandes, a Republican from St. Petersburg who filed one of the lawsuits, stated that the amendment appears partial and advocacy-driven. He urged the court to follow constitutional guidelines regarding such language. Conversely, DeSantis has warned opponents that seeking corrections could backfire politically, suggesting that legal challenges might ultimately benefit proponents by shifting blame for any wording changes to the Attorney General.
