Attorneys representing groups challenging Florida’s proposed property tax-cutting initiative argued before Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank on July 29 that the measure's ballot title and summary are misleading. The coalition contends that voters in November would be deceived by language they describe as a "political flyer" rather than neutral legal text. Jamie Cole, an attorney for Fort Lauderdale-based social welfare group Save Our Voters, argued alongside Joe Eagleton, who represents former state Sen. Jeff Brandes and ex-U.S. Rep. Al Lawson. They are seeking court intervention to force Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite the ballot language entirely.
Balanced Language vs. Political Rhetoric
Cole emphasized that for a ballot measure to be fair, it must remain neutral and unbiased. "It cannot be shaded for approval," Cole stated during the hearing. The opponents point specifically to the title, "Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes," arguing it strays from legal neutrality into advocacy. They also cited phrases in the summary such as "protecting small businesses" and "ensuring fairness for Florida residents." These terms were added by the Republican-controlled Legislature during a June special session called by Gov. Ron DeSantis. The plaintiffs argue these additions constitute political rhetoric that fails to identify major changes in government function, which is required under Florida case law.
Ben Gibson, representing Uthmeier’s office, dismissed the claims of bias. He argued that when read together as past case law requires, the measure's meaning and chief purpose are clear to voters. Gibson asserted that opponents were selectively citing individual words in isolation rather than evaluating the summary as a whole. The state maintains that the ballot summary must address the primary intent without detailing every potential ramification of the amendment.
Impact on Local Government Revenue
The legal dispute centers on Amendment 3, which proposes increasing the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and then to $250,000 in 2028. If approved by at least 60% of voters, the measure would significantly alter local government financing. State economists project that cities and counties could lose $5 billion in property tax revenue next year, with losses reaching nearly $12 billion by 2031. This financial shift has galvanized opposition from local governments, the state’s Fraternal Order of Police, firefighters’ unions, and fire chiefs.
Opponents warn that dwindling property tax dollars could lead to reductions in key local services or increased fees for park entrances and routine city maintenance. While Gov. Ron DeSantis initially pushed for the amendment during a special session, he has since distanced himself from the measure, stating it was not his proposal and refusing to lead any campaign efforts. With a late-August deadline approaching for the Secretary of State to certify ballot language, Judge Frank is expected to issue a ruling after August 3.
