The ballot summary for Gov. Ron DeSantis’ proposed constitutional amendment, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Tax,” came under scrutiny Wednesday in Leon County Circuit Court, where plaintiffs argued the language is misleading because it uses persuasive wording rather than neutrally describing the measure.
Under Florida law, ballot summaries must describe a proposed 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.
One of the lawsuits was filed by former Republican Senator and Florida Policy Project Founder Jeff Brandes, who represented portions of Pinellas County. Brandes has been one of the proposal’s most prominent critics, arguing that eliminating or dramatically reducing property taxes could create unintended consequences for local governments.
In a May 19 op-ed published by Florida Politics, Brandes wrote, “Florida is about to perform open-heart surgery on its tax system amid a housing market already under stress. That should make everyone a little nervous.”
While the op-ed advocates for inserting a sunset clause into the amendment to give lawmakers recourse in the event that the amendment doesn’t perform as hoped, his central warning is “real-world results [that] differ from the political sales pitch,” and its language mirrors his argument in his lawsuit challenging the ballot summary.
The ballot summary approved for the November ballot tells voters the amendment “benefits Florida taxpayers” by exempting the first $250,000 of a homestead property’s value from taxation for most levies. It also says the proposal would “ensur[e] funding for core services,” “protect[] small businesses,” and “ensur[e] fairness for Florida residents.”
Opponents argue those phrases amount to advocacy rather than neutral description. They contend words such as “benefits,” “ensuring,” “protecting” and “fairness” tell voters how to feel about the proposal instead of objectively explaining its legal effect.
They also argue the summary omits significant fiscal effects. Florida municipalities rely heavily on property taxes to fund services such as police, fire protection, road maintenance and parks. Critics contend reducing or eliminating that revenue could force local governments to cut services or seek alternative revenue sources, consequences they argue voters should understand before casting a ballot.
The summary also states the amendment would “ensure funding for core services.” Opponents argue that statement is misleading because the amendment itself does not guarantee funding levels. Instead, it directs that remaining property tax revenues be used for specified purposes, while local government budgets continue to fluctuate based on revenues, economic conditions and service demands.