Nearly 20 years ago, I filed a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would have dramatically changed Florida’s property tax system. In a June 2007 special session, the Florida Legislature approved a ballot measure to create a “Super Exemption” of up to $195,000 for homesteaded properties. To improve its chances of passage, the ballot language assured voters that Florida’s well-known Save Our Homes protections would be “preserved” — even though the proposal would have actually phased those protections out. On behalf of then-Weston Mayor Eric Hersh, I challenged that language in court. Second Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Charles Francis agreed it was misleading and ordered the measure removed from the ballot.
Now history appears to be repeating itself.
During another hastily conducted special session, the Legislature approved a proposed amendment that would increase Florida’s homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 and beyond, adjusted for inflation.
Whether that is good policy is for voters to decide.
The problem is that they are not being given a fair and neutral description of what they are being asked to approve.
The Florida Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, and the right to amend it belongs to the people. That right becomes meaningless if the ballot language advocates and misleads, rather than objectively explains.
The title and summary approved by the Legislature do exactly that.
The title — “Save our homes from excessive property taxes” — is not a neutral description of the amendment’s purpose. It is a campaign slogan.
The summary endorses rather than describes. It tells voters only one side of the story — how the amendment “benefits Florida taxpayers.”
It claims the amendment is “Ensuring funding for core services.” But the amendment guarantees no funding for police, fire, schools or infrastructure. By shrinking the local tax base, it is more likely to reduce the revenue available for those services. Reasonable people can debate that tradeoff; but it cannot fairly be called “ensuring funding.”
It claims to be “Protecting small businesses,” though small businesses are never mentioned in the text of the amendment, which simply limits future assessment increases on all non-homesteaded property. Calling that “protecting small businesses” is advocacy, not explanation.
It tells voters the amendment “requires, through general law, a schedule for full elimination” of non-school property taxes on homesteaded property. The actual language requires no such thing. It merely directs the Legislature to create procedures by which local governments may choose to grant further exemptions “up to all remaining assessed valuation” — not necessarily the full amount.
Finally, the summary declares the amendment is “Ensuring fairness for Florida residents.” Yet it offers relief only to homesteaded owners. Florida residents who rent their homes are likely to see higher costs as landlords pass along higher property taxes resulting from increased millage rates. And Florida residents who establish (or re-establish) residency after Dec. 31, 2026, must wait five years for the full $250,000 exemption.
Supporters of the amendment are free to campaign for it. Opponents are free to campaign against it. That is how democracy works. But the ballot itself should not be part of the campaign.
Regardless of where one stands on property taxes, every Floridian should agree on one principle: Constitutional amendments should rise or fall on an honest, neutral explanation of what they actually do. That was the issue in 2007, when a court found voters were given a misleading description of a major property tax proposal. The policy is different today; the principle is not.
The Florida Constitution belongs to the people — not to politicians, political consultants or advertising copywriters. Before voters are asked to rewrite it, they deserve a ballot question that accurately informs rather than persuades.
Jamie A. Cole is Fort Lauderdale office managing partner of law firm Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman, representing local officials and governments in matters that help improve their communities and preserve home rule power.
Read the full piece here: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2026/06/08/deja-vu-another-misleading-property-tax-ballot-question-opinion/.
