Florida Sued Over 'Biased and Misleading' Language on Property Tax Cut Amendment

A lawsuit was filed in a Florida court on Thursday, June 11, alleging that the ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment to cut property taxes is unconstitutionally biased and misleading. The complaint, filed in Leon County Circuit Court, targets Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd and Attorney General James Uthmeier, arguing that the title and summary approved by the state legislature function as a political advertisement rather than a neutral explanation for voters.

The lawsuit was brought by Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language, a nonprofit organization, along with two former South Florida mayors, Thomas F. Campenni of Stuart and Michael W. Davey of Key Biscayne. They are seeking to have the language rewritten before it appears on the November 2026 general election ballot. For business owners, the dispute highlights how the framing of complex tax policy can obscure the real financial consequences, creating significant uncertainty for strategic planning.

The proposed amendment, which the Republican-led legislature voted to send to voters on June 2, would represent a major overhaul of Florida's property tax system. It calls for increasing the current $50,000 homestead exemption on primary residences to $150,000 in 2027 and then to $250,000 in 2028. To become law, the amendment must secure approval from at least 60% of voters in November.

At the heart of the legal challenge is the title given to the measure: “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.” The lawsuit contends this is not a neutral title but a “campaign slogan” designed to persuade voters. The plaintiffs also note that the name is confusingly similar to Florida’s existing “Save Our Homes” provision, an unrelated cap that limits the annual increase in assessed values for homestead properties.

Jamie Cole, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, described the ballot summary as a “political slogan followed by a political flyer.” The lawsuit takes issue with several phrases in the summary, including claims that the amendment is “ensuring fairness,” “protecting small businesses,” and “ensuring funding for core services.” The complaint argues these are political taglines that endorse the amendment rather than objectively describe it.

The plaintiffs assert that some of these claims are factually inaccurate. For example, the lawsuit argues that the phrase “ensuring funding for core services” is misleading because the amendment, by design, would drastically cut property tax revenues for cities and counties. While the proposal would require local governments to spend remaining property tax revenues on a list of “core services” like public safety, it simultaneously reduces the total funds available for them to do so.

Similarly, the suit disputes the claim of “protecting small businesses.” There is no provision in the amendment that specifically targets small businesses for special treatment. The summary’s claim appears to refer to a provision that would lower the current 10% cap on annual assessment increases for non-homestead properties to 5%. However, this change applies broadly to all non-homestead properties, including large commercial real estate, apartment complexes, and vacation homes, not just small businesses.

Changes to the non-homestead property tax cap are often overlooked in public debate but have a direct and substantial impact on companies that own their commercial space. While a lower cap on assessment increases sounds beneficial on the surface, it is part of a complex fiscal restructuring that could shift tax burdens in unforeseen ways. We find that many business owners are unprepared for how such ballot initiatives can alter their long-term tax liabilities. This is precisely the kind of complex regulatory change where our tax preparation and compliance services become critical for navigating new rules and protecting a company’s financial health. Proactive planning is essential, and the team at C&S Finance Group LLC at csfinancegroup.com helps clients model these scenarios to avoid costly surprises.

This is not the first time such a challenge has been mounted in Florida. Cole, the plaintiffs’ attorney, successfully challenged a similar property-tax amendment nearly two decades ago. In that 2007 case, a judge agreed that the ballot language for a proposed “Super Exemption” was misleading and ordered the measure be removed from the ballot entirely. The precedent underscores the legal standard that ballot summaries must be fair and accurate.

Cole emphasized the importance of neutral language, noting that many voters encounter the ballot summary for the first time in the voting booth and rely on it to make an informed decision. “A ballot amendment is supposed to be fair, neutral, and not biased, and it's supposed to be accurate,” he stated. “If that's not fair, the whole system is going to fall apart.”

Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, the underlying proposal signals a significant potential shift in Florida's tax landscape that businesses cannot afford to ignore. Waiting for the political and legal dust to settle is not a viable strategy. Companies should be actively assessing the potential impacts of such a substantial tax cut on local government services, infrastructure, and the broader business climate.

The case will now proceed through the Leon County court system. The court could ultimately dismiss the complaint, order state officials to rewrite the ballot title and summary, or, as in the 2007 precedent, remove the amendment from the November ballot altogether. The ruling will determine what, if anything, millions of Florida voters will see regarding this major tax proposal this fall.