This article has been updated from a previous version to reflect the subsequent results of the court case
Florida voters will see a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November titled “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.” Supporters say it would provide property tax relief for homeowners. However, the GOP-led Legislature’s approved ballot language summarizing the amendment has come under scrutiny because critics contend it advocates for the measure rather than neutrally describing its legal effect and potential consequences.
Under Florida law, ballot summaries must describe a proposed constitutional amendment’s chief purpose in clear and unambiguous language. Florida courts have further held that summaries must fairly inform voters of an amendment’s chief purpose and may not be misleading.
Former Republican Sen. Jeff Brandes, founder of the Florida Policy Project and a longtime advocate for tax reform, challenged the ballot language in Leon County Circuit Court. Brandes has been one of the proposal’s most vocal critics, warning that dramatically reducing property taxes could create unintended consequences for local governments that rely on them to fund police, fire protection, roads, parks and other public services.
Late Monday, Judge David Frank largely sided with Brandes, ruling that portions of the ballot title and summary are misleading and ordering Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite them before the amendment appears on the November ballot.
His lawsuit, however, was never asking the court to decide whether eliminating property taxes is good policy. Instead, it challenged whether the ballot summary itself violated Florida law.
The case has precedent. In Armstrong v. Harris (2000), the Florida Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment that nearly 73% of voters had approved, ruling that its ballot title and summary were misleading. The ballot was titled “Preservation of the Death Penalty; United States Supreme Court Interpretation of Cruel and Unusual Punishment” and told voters the amendment would require Florida’s Constitution to conform to U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Eighth Amendment.
The court found that language implied the amendment would preserve or strengthen constitutional protections when its primary effect was to eliminate broader protections already guaranteed under Florida’s Constitution. The decision established that ballot summaries must fairly explain an amendment’s chief purpose and legal effect rather than persuade voters or obscure its consequences. Frank reached much the same conclusion, finding that portions of the proposed ballot language crossed the line from explaining the amendment to advocating for it.
Brandes condensed the ruling like this: “It basically says these amendments cannot hide under false colors. The ballot summary only discloses benefits, but none of the problems.”
Brandes contends DeSantis’ “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” amendment suffers from the same defect.
Similar to the 2000 Supreme Court case, Brandes argues that the title itself, deploying the word “save,” suggests Floridians are losing something. Furthermore, the opening line states, “This amendment benefits Florida taxpayers,” but, Brandes notes, words like “benefits” imply there are no drawbacks while omitting the potential impacts on local governments that rely on property taxes to fund police, fire protection, roads and other public services.
He also takes issue with the summary’s repeated guarantees. Phrases such as “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents,” Brandes said, read more like advocacy than an objective explanation of the amendment’s actual effects. Frank’s ruling similarly found that those types of assurances failed to neutrally describe the amendment’s legal effect, reinforcing Brandes’ argument that the ballot language had crossed into advocacy.
Brandes’ criticism is not limited to those phrases. He maintains the amendment summary is filled with guarantees and assurances that the amendment itself cannot realistically make.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has pitched the amendment as part of a broader effort to rein in local government spending by reducing one of the primary revenue sources cities and counties control: property taxes. But Brandes believes the proposal actually penalizes fiscally conservative local governments rather than rewarding them.
If, for example, local municipalities collected only the revenue they needed, they would, under this amendment, have less financial flexibility than governments that accumulated larger reserves, which would have a greater financial buffer for overstuffing their coffers.
“The math doesn’t work,” Brandes said. “The governor is treating every county as if they are spending like drunken sailors, even the deep-red counties.”
Brandes added, “Buried in this constitutional amendment is a provision where the Florida Legislature can tell counties and cities what they can spend their money on.”
He said that provision has received far less attention than the tax relief itself, despite its potential to shift more control over local budgeting to Tallahassee.
Prior to filing suit, Brandes said he met with Senate President Ben Albritton and the amendment’s sponsor, urging them to at least append a sunset clause — an automatic expiration date that would require lawmakers to revisit and reauthorize the amendment after a set period. If the proposal produced unintended consequences for local governments, the Legislature would have a built-in opportunity to correct course rather than permanently embedding the policy in the state Constitution.
Those discussions proved unsuccessful, leaving the courts as Brandes’ only remaining recourse.
That is ultimately the remedy Frank ordered. Rather than removing the amendment from the November ballot, the judge directed Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite the title and summary to more accurately reflect the amendment’s legal effect. Under the ruling, Brandes and the other plaintiffs may challenge the revised language if they believe it remains misleading.
Brandes said the current language reads more like “a campaign flyer” for a future DeSantis presidential bid. “This amendment is about power,” he added. “We are probably going to bankrupt certain counties and cities. DeSantis knows this.”
“This case is about whether voters are being told the truth and whether the Legislature will allow advocacy on the ballot,” Brandes continued. “We are not asking the court to decide tax policy.”
Following Monday night’s ruling, the decision validated Brandes’s central thesis, marking “a victory for every FLorida voter,” according to Brandes.
“The court reaffirmed that ballot language matters and that voters deserve clear, accurate information before they’re asked to amend their Constitution. While I continue to have serious concerns about the amendment’s long-term impact on local communities, taxpayers, renters, and small businesses, this case was about protecting the integrity of the ballot.
“I’m encouraged that the court retained jurisdiction to review any revised proposal, helping ensure that whatever ultimately appears before Florida voters meets the constitutional standards of clarity, accuracy, and fairness,” he said.
However, the exact language the Attorney General will use in the rewrite has not yet been revealed.
Let’s stay in touch – send story ideas, tips and leads to aaron@cityverse.life