Judge finds Amendment 3 ballot language misleading
Judge orders Uthmeier to re-write, curing legal deficiencies
A circuit court judge has found the language for Florida’s touted “tax reform” amendment misleading and has given State Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to revise the ballot title or summary.
“Simply put, the proposed ballot title does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it endorses it and diverts voters from its actual effect,” Circuit Court Judge David Frank, of the 2nd Judicial Circuit, wrote in an 18-page order issued Monday.
The order states that the ballot summary for Amendment 3 is more a sales pitch than an explanation of what changes the proposed constitutional amendment would bring about.
“The ballot summary tells voters that the amendment ‘benefits Florida taxpayers,'” the order states. “Whether the amendment would ‘benefit’ taxpayers is the central policy question voters are being asked to decide. The ballot summary then sets forth three political taglines – ‘Ensuring funding for core services,’ ‘Protecting small businesses,’ and ‘Ensuring fairness for Florida residents’ — giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal. But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption,” Frank found.
The ballot language as currently stated is legally defective as it “misleads” and “misstates,” the judge found.
He also addressed Amendment 3’s title: “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.”
“Even if a voter owns his or her home and it is a primary residence, the voter still may not be ‘saved’ from higher ‘excessive property taxes’ because the benefit from the higher exemption for a particular homestead property (particularly homes with high taxable values) could be offset by a higher millage rate (or by special assessments).”
“In summary, voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination. The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” Frank found.
“The ballot title and summary simply must pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot,” the order also states.
The order was hailed by opponents of the measure who said Amendment 3 would be a tax shift, not tax relief, and that it would significantly impact the ability of local governments to provide necessary services.
“Today’s ruling affirms our stated concerns since the idea of property tax elimination was first floated by Gov. DeSantis in February 2025: that presenting this as a ‘savings’ for Floridians fundamentally misrepresents the true consequences of this amendment,” stated the Florida Policy Institute Tuesday morning. “Eliminating homestead property taxes would be a monumental cost shift. It would result in reduced or eliminated public services – longer emergency response times, rural hospitals shuttered, libraries closing, and more expensive childcare and summer camps, to name just a few ways Amendment 3 would erode Floridians’ quality of life and make Florida more unaffordable. Floridians deserve accurate information on what is at stake and we urge Attorney General Uthmeier to respond to the judge’s order and strip out the extreme bias in Amendment 3’s ballot language.”
The challenge was brought forward by Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, Inc. which describes itself as a not-for-profit social welfare corporation, and two affected resident individuals, contending that the ballot title and ballot summary for the Proposed Constitutional Amendment would mislead voters.
Relief sought was that the “Court declare that the Ballot Statement is unfair, biased, misleading and inaccurate” and direct the attorney general to correct deficiencies found by the court.
The plaintiffs did not ask the court to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot, states they understood that is not an option. The judge’s order that the language be re-written does not remove Amendment 3 from the ballot.
The Court retained jurisdiction over any challenge to a revised ballot title or ballot summary prepared by the Attorney General.
For the measure to pass, more than 60% of the voters would need to vote “yes” in the General Election in November.
To reach Valarie Harring, please email vharring@breezenewspapers.com