A Florida judge heard arguments Wednesday challenging the ballot language for the property tax relief amendment, also known as Amendment 3.
Three similar lawsuits were consolidated into one hearing before Second Judicial Circuit Court Judge David Frank. The plaintiffs from the three suits maintain similar arguments: primarily that the ballot language used for Amendment 3 is biased and fails to properly inform voters.
“In this case, the title and the summary is so much more biased, so much more inaccurate, so much worse than all the other cases we’ve cited. This is probably the worst example of a biased ballot question and an inaccurate ballot question that we’ve seen and I don’t say that to denigrate anyone. I know it was done very quickly, they only had a few days in session,” said Jamie Cole, lawyer for Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language, Inc. “But it’s really clear that there are gross errors and this is really just a political campaign flyer.”
The current ballot title for Amendment 3 includes the phrase: “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.” Cole argued that using the word “save” employed emotional terms, which should not be included.
Plaintiffs also argued that the summary text of the amendment left out important details, which could mislead people about what they are voting for.
“This is a summary. It’s not required to state every single category. It’s also not required to state every exception,” said Benjamin Gibson, representing defendants the Florida Department of State and the Attorney General. He went on to say, “There’s no requirement, unlike past constitutional amendment proposal summaries, that this has to be technical and in legal jargon. And in fact, that probably goes against it being clear and unambiguous.”
The summary of the amendment, which will need 60% of the vote to pass, states that it would exempt the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value and calls for a schedule toward “full elimination.” It requires core services like public safety, education, infrastructure and natural resources to remain funded, limits future property tax assessments on businesses, and requires anyone who moves to Florida after January 2027 to maintain residency for five years before receiving the increased homestead exemption.
Florida’s Revenue Estimating Conference estimated that Amendment 3 would cost $12 billion on a recurring basis.
The judge concluded Wednesday’s hearing by saying it was “an excellent example of quality advocation.”
“The work you did in your written briefs, the work you did in your oral presentations today has been absolutely excellent on the part of all the parties and I feel like it deserves a comment on the record,” Judge David Frank said.
“We continue to believe the ballot language falls short of providing voters with the transparency they deserve about the amendment’s potential effects on public safety, local services and the shifting of tax burdens,” Edie Ousley, spokesperson for Vote No on 3, told The Center Square. “We remain hopeful the Court will ultimately rule in favor of transparency for voters.”
Proposed orders are due by Monday afternoon.