Controversy Surrounding Amendment 3 Ballot Language in Florida

At the National Conservatism Conference in Washington D.C. on September 3, 2025, James Uthmeier spoke about a significant issue in Florida concerning Amendment 3, a proposal for reducing property taxes. A Tallahassee judge highlighted a critical issue with the amendment’s ballot language, describing it as biased and in need of a rewrite for voter clarity.

Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank identified several problems with the amendment’s presentation. In his 18-page ruling, he emphasized that the language was more political than explanatory. He criticized aspects ranging from the title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” to the summary seen by voters as misleading and politically skewed. He stressed that voters deserve a neutral, clear, and accurate statement to help them make informed decisions.

The amendment, initially advocated by Governor Ron DeSantis, proposed increasing the homestead exemption on owner-occupied homes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. Another part aimed at reducing the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. Although controversial, the measure once included a provision to maintain funding for public schools before the Legislature amended it.

A bipartisan group, Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, challenged the amendment legally. The group includes former lawmakers such as Sen. Jeff Brandes and U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, among others. Attorney General James Uthmeier, running for election, must revise the ballot language within ten days, with any further challenges needing to happen within another ten days post-revision.

Judge Frank noted several fairness issues, including subheadings like “ensuring funding for core services,” which he found inaccurate. He explained that the amendment could reduce local governments’ revenue for essential services such as police and fire departments. Additionally, the measure discriminates against renters and new Florida residents, who might face adverse effects.

Significantly, the amendment does not inform voters about potentially altering “home rule,” a principle allowing local governments to manage revenue. Frank stated that the amendment might place control of property tax spending in the hands of the Legislature for the first time.

Floridians will vote on this in November, provided the proposal makes it to the ballot without misleading details. Clarified language is crucial for voters to understand the implications fully.