The decision was issued on August 3, 2026 in an 18-page document by Circuit Judge David Frankwho prohibited Secretary of State Cord Byrd from placing the proposal on the ballot as currently worded.
The order does not eliminate the amendment or prevent it from being put to a vote. Instead, it directs Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to prepare within 10 days a revised title or summary that corrects the deficiencies identified by the court.
Why the judge rejected the text of Amendment 3
The proposal, approved by the Legislature through Joint Resolution CS/HJR 1-F of the House of Representatives, was titled “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes”which can be translated as “Let’s save our homes from excessive property taxes.”
Judge Frank determined that that title is more like a political slogan than a neutral description of the initiative.
According to the order, the word “save” is intended to provoke an emotional reaction and the phrase “Save Our Homes” could lead voters to believe that the proposal is related to the constitutional provision approved in 1992 that limits annual increases in the assessed value of primary homes. However, the judge noted that the new amendment does not directly modify that provision.
“The proposed title does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it supports it and diverts voters from its actual effect,” the order stated.
What the election summary said about property taxes
The summary questioned by the judge begins by stating that the initiative “benefits Florida taxpayers” and divides its provisions into four supposed benefits: Exempt homestead properties from taxes, guarantee funds for essential services, protect small businesses, guarantee equity for Florida residents.
The Court concluded that these expressions do not objectively explain the content of the amendment, but rather offer political reasons to support it.
For the judge, it is up to the voters to decide whether the proposal is beneficial and the summary cannot present that conclusion as a fact.
Exemption would not start at $250,000 during 2027
Another major error identified by the judge relates to the increase in the homestead exemption for local non-school taxes.
The summary stated that the proposal would exempt the first $250,000 of the value of a main home and would come into force on January 1, 2027.
However, the court explained that the exemption would be $150,000 during 2027 and would increase to $250,000 in 2028with subsequent adjustments for inflation.
For this reason, the judge considered it inaccurate to present the $250,000 as a benefit applicable from the first year.
The amendment does not order to completely eliminate the tax
The ballot text also said the Legislature would establish a timeline to completely eliminate local non-school taxes on primary residences.
The order concluded that the constitutional proposal does not require such elimination.
In effect, it would require the Legislature to establish procedures so that counties and municipalities can grant additional exemptions up to the full value of the property. Special districts could do so with voter approval.
Court questions promise to protect public services
The court also rejected the claim that the amendment would guarantee funding for police, fire, schools, infrastructure and other essential public services.
According to the order, the proposal does not secure a specific amount of money for those services and would significantly reduce the property tax base of local governments.
The legislative analysis cited in the ruling estimated a reduction in $4.95 billion in local non-school revenue during fiscal year 2027-2028 and 8.78 billion in 2028-2029.
When the proposal is fully implemented, the recurring loss would reach 11.86 billion dollars annuallyaccording to that analysis.
The Court clarified that it is not up to it to decide whether local governments will raise tax rates to compensate for the loss. However, he maintained that the amendment does not prevent them from doing so and, therefore, cannot guarantee that all homeowners will pay less.
Small businesses do not receive special protection
The summary stated that the initiative would protect small businesses by limiting future increases in their property assessments.
The judge noted that the proposal does not specifically mention small businesses or grant them exclusive protection.
The measure would reduce 10% to 5% the annual limit on increases in the assessed value of all properties without a homestead exemption, a category that includes commercial real estate, rental properties and second homes.
Therefore, the court ordered to eliminate any specific reference to the protection of small businesses.
What would happen to the new residents of Florida
The amendment includes a provision for individuals who were not residents of Florida on December 31, 2026.
Those homeowners could receive the current exemption when they qualified for homesteading, but would have to wait until the fifth year to access the expanded exemption, as long as the provision is compatible with the federal Constitution.
The court found that the summary incorrectly described who would be subject to the wait and when they would begin receiving the additional benefit.
He also considered the phrase “guarantee equity for Florida residents” to be partial, because it presents as fair a policy whose merit is up to voters to evaluate.
What Judge David Frank Ordered
The decision grants the summary judgment requested by the plaintiffs, including Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language, Inc.and rejects the motions presented by Byrd and Uthmeier.
The Save Our Voters from Misleading Language on the Ballot organization is comprised of Thomas Campenni, former mayor of Stuart, and Michael Davey, former mayor of Key Biscayne, among others.
The ruling establishes that:
- The current text cannot appear on the ballot.
- The attorney general must prepare a corrected version within 10 days.
- The State Department must send the new language to election supervisors in all 67 counties.
- Any challenge to the revised version must be submitted within 10 days of its delivery.
- The court will retain jurisdiction to evaluate new objections.
The order constitutes a final ruling for appeal purposes.
Amendment 3 is still scheduled for the November elections
However, the court decision does not determine whether the tax reduction proposal is wise or analyze its political expediency. Frank emphasized that that decision belongs solely to Florida voters.
The court’s purpose, he explained, is to ensure that the title and summary clearly, fairly and accurately report the main effects of the amendment before voters cast their vote.
Florida Attorney General Uthmeier has not yet commented on the judge’s ruling.
(email protected)
