By Staff Report
A Leon County circuit judge heard arguments Wednesday, July 29 over whether a proposed constitutional amendment on Florida’s November ballot uses misleading language to persuade voters to support sweeping property tax cuts.
Three groups of plaintiffs, including former local government officials and a former Republican legislator, argue the title and ballot summary approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in June use “emotional and political rhetoric” designed to sway voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 1F, would increase the current $50,000 homestead exemption to $150,000 next year and $250,000 the following year. The increased exemption would not apply to the portion of property taxes levied for K-12 public schools.
The proposal also would reduce the cap on annual assessment increases for non-homesteaded property from 10% to 5%.
Attorney Jamie Cole argued the amendment’s title, “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes,” improperly encourages voters to support the proposal through biased language, violating previous court rulings.
“The ballot question, the thing that the voters see when they vote, has to be fair and it has to be accurate,” Cole said. “It should not be political rhetoric, it should not be emotional language … it should not hide the ball and it should not mislead.”
Cole cited a 1994 Florida Supreme Court ruling that found a proposed “Save Our Everglades” amendment misleading because “it implies that the Everglades is lost, or in danger of being lost, to the citizens of our State, and needs to be ‘saved’ via the proposed amendment.”
Benjamin Gibson, an attorney representing the state, argued the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the ballot language is legally defective. He also contended the title accurately describes the proposal because it identifies what supporters view as the threat to homeowners — excessive property taxes.
Gibson also dismissed arguments that the measure would effectively give the Legislature veto power over local government spending by limiting the use of property tax revenues to infrastructure, education, public safety and other major needs.
“The ballot title and summary does not need to explain unknowns or hypothetical consequences,” Gibson said.
The proposal stems largely from a yearlong campaign by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has traveled the state highlighting the growth in property tax collections over the past six years. However, he criticized lawmakers for excluding school taxes from the expanded homestead exemption before approving the measure. DeSantis has said he will vote for the amendment but will not campaign for it.
Some local government officials, concerned the measure could significantly reduce local revenues if approved by the required 60% of voters, have campaigned against the proposal.
Judge David Frank did not immediately rule after the two-hour hearing. If he determines part of the ballot language is defective, Attorney General James Uthmeier would have 10 days to revise it.
Time could be a factor, however, because counties are expected to begin printing general election vote-by-mail ballots at the end of August.
Former Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican, is among those challenging the proposal.
“I don’t think there is anybody who can say when this amendment was drafted that It’s not partial and it’s not advocacy,” Brandes said. “All we are asking the court to do is follow the law and follow what the Constitution lays out when it relates to advocacy.”
DeSantis has warned opponents that forcing Uthmeier to rewrite the ballot language could ultimately strengthen the proposal.
“We’ll win at the trial court, but if we don’t then you’ve got to go and do a quick appeal,” DeSantis said after the lawsuits were filed. “If, somehow, you lose on that then they say the attorney general writes the language. I’d say to some of these big government advocates, ‘Be careful what you wish for’.”
