A Leon County circuit judge on Tuesday rejected the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment that would make sweeping changes to Florida’s property tax system, ruling that the language approved by lawmakers was misleading, politically charged and factually inaccurate.
The decision does not remove House Joint Resolution 1F from the November 2026 ballot. Instead, the order bars Secretary of State Cord Byrd from using the current wording and directs Attorney General James Uthmeier to prepare a revised ballot title and summary within 10 days.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature during a special session, would increase the homestead exemption for nonschool property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with future inflation adjustments. It would also lower the annual assessment-growth cap on nonhomestead property from 10% to 5%, restrict how local governments spend property tax revenue and establish a process through which additional homestead exemptions could be approved.
The proposal is part of a broader push by state leaders to reduce or potentially eliminate property taxes on homesteaded property. Supporters have argued that rising property values have produced rapidly increasing local tax collections and placed additional pressure on homeowners. Local governments and other critics have warned that large exemptions could reduce revenue available for police, fire protection, infrastructure and other services.
The Legislature titled the amendment “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” and said it would benefit taxpayers, ensure funding for core services, protect small businesses and promote fairness for Florida residents.
The court found those phrases amounted to advocacy rather than a neutral explanation. The order said “Save Our Homes” could confuse voters because that phrase already refers to Florida’s existing constitutional limit on annual homestead assessment increases, which the proposed amendment would not change.
The judge also found that the summary inaccurately suggested the amendment would require the full elimination of nonschool homestead property taxes. The underlying text would instead allow local governments to grant additional exemptions up to a property’s full assessed value.
The order further criticized the claim that the proposal would ensure funding for core services. A legislative analysis estimated the amendment would eventually reduce nonschool local property tax revenue by about $11.86 billion annually.
The court retained jurisdiction over future challenges. Opponents will have 10 days to contest the replacement language after it is submitted.