Florida Nonprofit Sues Over Potentially Misleading Property Tax Amendment Title
A Florida nonprofit sued the state over misleading ballot language for a property tax amendment.
Why it matters: Clear and neutral ballot language is crucial for informed voter decisions and election integrity. This lawsuit highlights legal tensions between voter information accuracy and political messaging, impacting property tax policies and election law practices.
- The lawsuit was filed on June 11, 2026, by two former mayors and a nonprofit group challenging the amendment's ballot summary.
- The proposed amendment aims to increase Florida's homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.
- Plaintiffs allege the ballot title uses political slogans like "ensuring funding for core services" rather than neutral language.
- If found misleading, Florida's Attorney General must revise the ballot summary within 10 days under state law.
On June 11, 2026, a lawsuit was filed in Leon County Circuit Court by former Florida mayors Thomas Campenni and Michael Davey, alongside the nonprofit Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language. They challenged the ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at increasing the state's homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and further to $250,000 in 2028. The amendment is titled "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes."
The plaintiffs claim the ballot summary uses language that endorses the amendment rather than neutrally describing it, citing promotional phrases such as "ensuring funding for core services," "protecting small businesses," and "ensuring fairness for Florida residents." The lawsuit states, "The ballot summary does not merely describe the Proposed Constitutional Amendment – it endorses it." Jamie Cole, Weston City Attorney, added that the summary "looks more like a campaign slogan flyer than a ballot summary."
Local government officials have warned the amendment could reduce budgets by an estimated $8.4 billion annually, risking cuts to essential public services like police and fire protection. These concerns are central to the debate on the amendment’s broader impact beyond property tax relief.
Under Florida law, if the court agrees with the lawsuit that the ballot summary is misleading, Attorney General James Uthmeier would be required to amend the language within 10 days to ensure voter materials accurately reflect the amendment's implications. How the Attorney General intends to respond to such a ruling remains unspecified.
This case underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in ballot language, which affects not only voter perception but also the legal landscape around election communications. It highlights ongoing tensions over how much political messaging can appear in ballot materials without impairing voters’ ability to make informed decisions.
By the numbers:
- $8.4 billion — potential annual reduction in local government revenue if amendment passes
- 10 days — timeframe for Attorney General to amend ballot summary if found misleading
- $50,000 to $250,000 — projected homestead exemption increase from 2027 to 2028
Yes, but: While the plaintiffs argue the ballot language is promotional, proponents of the amendment have not publicly responded to these claims, leaving questions about defense strategies or alternative wording.
What's next: The court will review the lawsuit filings and determine whether the ballot summary violates state election laws, likely issuing a ruling before the amendment appears on the ballot.