Florida Property Tax Amendment Challenged in Court Over Allegedly Misleading Ballot Language

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A proposed constitutional amendment aimed at significantly cutting Florida property taxes was challenged in court on Thursday, June 11, 2026, just a week after being placed on the November ballot by state lawmakers. A lawsuit filed in Leon County Circuit Court by two former mayors and a nonprofit group alleges the amendment's ballot summary is unconstitutionally biased and misleading, and asks a judge to order the language be redrafted before it reaches voters.

The plaintiffs in the case are Thomas Campenni, the former mayor of Stuart; Michael Davey, the former mayor of Key Biscayne; and a nonprofit organization named Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language. Their suit contends that the ballot language for the measure, known as HJR 1F, deceives voters about its true financial impact on local governments and its purported benefits for small businesses.

The amendment, if approved by 60 percent of voters, would enact substantial changes to Florida's property tax system. It proposes to increase the existing $50,000 homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027, and again to $250,000 in 2028. Additionally, it would lower the current 10 percent cap on annual property assessment increases for non-homestead properties, which includes commercial and rental properties, to 5 percent.

The lawsuit targets several specific phrases in the ballot summary. One key point of contention is the phrase “ensuring funding for core services.” The plaintiffs argue this is a misnomer because the amendment itself would drastically reduce the property tax revenues that fund those very services, such as public safety. According to a House staff analysis, the measure is projected to cost local governments as much as $8.4 billion annually, creating significant budget shortfalls.

Another central claim in the lawsuit revolves around the summary's assertion that the amendment is “protecting small businesses.” The plaintiffs argue there is no provision in the amendment that specifically singles out small businesses for special treatment. While the cap on assessment increases would be lowered, this applies broadly to all non-homestead properties. The lawsuit states that this provision offers “no protection to small businesses… from the expected higher taxes resulting from increases in millages rates necessary to offset” the loss of tax base caused by the amendment.

The claim of 'protecting small businesses' is particularly concerning because broad tax changes often create unintended consequences. In our experience, a one-size-fits-all cap on assessment increases does little to shield businesses from the inevitable budget shortfalls local governments will face. They often respond by increasing millage rates, which can wipe out any perceived savings and shift a greater tax burden onto commercial properties.

The legal challenge also takes issue with the ballot summary’s suggestion that it would eventually lead to the elimination of all non-school homestead property taxes, a goal publicly stated by Governor Ron DeSantis. The lawsuit clarifies that the amendment does not mandate this elimination. Instead, it only directs the Legislature to create a framework that would allow local governments to phase out these taxes, a far less definitive outcome than what the summary implies.

This is a classic example of how headline-grabbing tax cuts can obscure complex realities for business owners. A lower assessment cap looks good on paper, but if it triggers higher millage rates, the net effect on a company's tax bill could be negative. Businesses in Florida now face significant uncertainty in their financial planning. Navigating these state and local tax shifts requires detailed analysis, something we handle constantly as part of our tax preparation and compliance services. For companies trying to forecast their obligations, it's critical to understand the full picture, and C&S Finance Group LLC at csfinancegroup.com provides that clarity.

The legal effort is being led by Broward County attorney Jamie Cole, who has a history with this type of litigation. In 2007, Cole successfully challenged a similar property tax proposal that the Legislature had placed on the ballot, lending weight to the current lawsuit. The complaint asks the court for a declaration that the current ballot language is invalid and seeks an order directing Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody to draft a new, accurate summary for voters.

Such legal challenges to complex tax legislation are not unique to Florida. In Montana, for example, a 2026 lawsuit challenged a sweeping property tax bill, SB 542, alleging lawmakers unconstitutionally bundled multiple unrelated subjects into a single bill and misled the public about its contents. While the legal arguments differ, both cases highlight a growing trend of contentious tax overhauls facing judicial scrutiny over their transparency and legislative process.

Ultimately, this legal challenge highlights the instability that politicized tax policy introduces. The uncertainty about future tax liabilities remains a significant headwind for strategic planning.

The case will now await a response from the state. The court's decision will determine whether the amendment appears on the November ballot as currently written, with revised language, or not at all. For Florida's businesses and homeowners, the outcome will have significant financial implications for years to come.