{"id":75573,"date":"2026-08-04T18:06:03","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:06:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/?p=75573"},"modified":"2026-08-04T18:06:17","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:06:17","slug":"judge-orders-rewrite-of-florida-property-tax-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/2026\/08\/04\/judge-orders-rewrite-of-florida-property-tax-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge orders rewrite of Florida property tax amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In a decision issued on August 4, 2026, Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank ruled that the ballot title and summary for Florida’s Amendment 3<\/strong> (a constitutional amendment aimed at significantly cutting property taxes) fail to comply with state law and must be rewritten before the November general election.<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling does not<\/strong> strike the amendment itself from the ballot; rather, it targets the language designed to explain the measure to voters.<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Reasons for the Ruling<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Use of Political Slogans over Neutral Description<\/strong>Judge Frank found that the proposed title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,”<\/em> functioned “more akin to a political slogan” than a fair and neutral statement. He noted that under long-standing Florida Supreme Court precedent, rhetoric like the word “save” is designed to elicit emotional responses rather than inform voters neutrally.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Misleading Borrowing of Brand Names<\/strong>The title invoked “Save Our Homes,” which references Florida’s popular 1992 constitutional assessment cap. The judge ruled that using this phrase could mislead voters into believing they were reaffirming that existing provision, which the new amendment does not alter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Advocacy in the Ballot Summary<\/strong>The ruling criticized several phrases in the summary\u2014such as “Ensuring funding for core services,”<\/em> “Protecting small businesses,”<\/em> and “Ensuring fairness for Florida residents”<\/em>\u2014as political taglines and campaign advocacy rather than clear legal explanations. The judge pointed out that the amendment does not actively ensure funding for local core services (and might actually reduce local municipal revenues) nor does it mention small businesses directly in its legal text.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Inaccurate Scope Timeline<\/strong>The summary claimed to exempt the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value, but the actual amendment scales this up over time\u2014offering a $150,000 exemption in 2027 and reaching $250,000 in 2028.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    What the Amendment Does<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    If approved by at least 60% of voters in November, the proposed constitutional amendment would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n