A Leon Circuit Court judge heard arguments Wednesday over whether the property tax cut proposal to be placed on the November ballot is misleading to voters.
Three groups of plaintiffs, including former local government elected officials and a former Republican legislator, contend the title and ballot summary approved by the GOP-led Legislature in June uses “emotional and political rhetoric” designed to sway voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment (HJR 1F) would increase the current $50,000 homestead exemption to $150,000 next year and $250,000 the following year. The exemption, however, wouldn’t apply to the portion of the property tax bill levied for K-12 public schools.
Another provision of the measure would lower the cap on annual assessments of non-homesteaded properties from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Attorney Jamie Cole argued the title of the amendment “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” pushed voters to favor the proposal by using biased language, in violation of previous court rulings.
“The ballot question, the thing that the voters see when they vote, has to be fair and it has to be accurate,” Cole said. “It should not be political rhetoric, it should not be emotional language … it should not hide the ball and it should not mislead.”
Cole pointed to a Florida Supreme Court opinion from 1994 that a proposed “Save Our Everglades” amendment was misleading because “it implies that the Everglades is lost, or in danger of being lost, to the citizens of our State, and needs to be ‘saved’ via the proposed amendment.”
But Benjamin Gibson, an attorney representing the state, said the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the ballot summary was defective. Also, the measure’s title wasn’t misleading because it spells out the danger to homesteads: excessive taxes.
He also downplayed arguments the measure would essentially give the Legislature veto power over how local property taxes are spent because it restricts such spending to infrastructure, education, public safety and other major needs.
“The ballot title and summary does not need to explain unknowns or hypothetical consequences,” Gibson said.
The measure was largely the product of a year-long campaign by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who toured the state highlighting the surge of property tax revenues in the last six years. But he chided the Legislature for changing his proposal to exempt school taxes before passing it. DeSantis has said he’ll vote for the measure but won’t campaign for it.
Some local government officials, fearing massive cuts to their budgets if the amendment were to get the 60 percent support from voters needed to pass, have campaigned against the proposal.
Judge David Frank didn’t immediately rule from the bench after the two-hour hearing. If he finds part of the ballot measure defective, Attorney General James Uthmeier would have 10 days to correct the issues.
There could be a time crunch, however, as general election mail ballots would start being printed at the end of August.
Former Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican, brought one of the lawsuits filed against the property tax cut proposal
“I don’t think there is anybody who can say when this amendment was drafted that It’s not partial and it’s not advocacy,” Brandes said. “All we are asking the court to do is follow the law and follow what the Constitution lays out when it relates to advocacy.”
But DeSantis has warned opponents of the measure that moving to get Uthmeier to fix any issues with the proposed amendment could backfire.
“We’ll win at the trial court, but if we don’t then you’ve got to go and do a quick appeal,” DeSantis said previously after the lawsuits were filed. “If, somehow, you lose on that then they say the attorney general writes the language. I’d say to some of these big government advocates, ‘Be careful what you wish for’.”
–Tom Urban, Gray Rohrer, News Service of Florida
Michele says
What is so wrong with saving Taxpayers’ money? Anyone politically who goes against this new law is dead in my eyes. We need help. Middle class homeowners need help. The taxes have only gone up and up and up as the govt in Palm Coast keeps approving various expenditures that affect taxpayers.
We want this law. We want help. Enough with your political bs. Help the people who put you in office or NOT…expect to be voted out
JC says
I want help but I don’t want the state government to be all powerful, which is what Amendment 3 will do if it passes. I escaped a blue state where there’s barely no local control and it sucks when a big state government is in control of everything. Keep in mind this Amendment doesn’t cut state funding, so the state government will continue to get more powerful and they will be the boss of your life. This is why I’m voting no.
Ed Danko, former Vice-Mayor, PC says
DON’T FALL FOR SCARE TACTICS! I fully support this amendment. As the former Vice-Mayor of Palm Coast I know first hand how our elected officials and bureaucrats waste our hard earned money. Time for them to finally do what we all do at home, which is manage our money responsibly, tighten our belts, and a lot of times simply do without. No more “Tax & Spend” and no more foolish “Pet Projects” for political friends! VOTE YES!
Dan says
Thank you Ed for your honest exposure of your experience with government waste. Too many voters overlook and ignore that.
I’m voting YES, for sure.
Waste not want not says
The sky isn’t falling. Don’t listen to the cry babies who get the piggy bank taken away.
Homestead exemption,when started, was a 25% deduction against avg home value in Fla.
Increases in exemption,over the years, has maintained the 25% ratio.
Today the avg Fla house is valued at
$489,000.
Our deduction has not kept up and local government just squandered the windfall they unfortunately have become use to.
Also this bill will only affect 25% of Florida properties.
This bill is a no brainer and should be passed.
Let’s keep our $ out of the government waste
JC says
Where did you get $489k for average housing value? Plenty of websites have this amount at $370k.
Laurel says
The same *news* shows that repeat “the sky isn’t falling.”
So easy.
Koyote says
“This bill is a no brainer and should be passed.”
Think about what you just said against what you THOUGHT you said :)
‘No-Brainer’ indeed … finally admitted :)
If it’s a ‘No-Brainer’ then only ‘No-Brainers’ will vote for it, correct?
As Max Headroom once said : “You’re the Executive branch? Does that mean you execute people?”
I haven’t heard one person come out against this bill because they want taxes to increase – or even remain at current levels. The problem with this ‘solution’ is identical with many of the Republicans ‘solutions’ recently – i.e. Stop the ‘bad’ process .. but absolutely NOTHING to replace the necessary processes which the ‘bad’ process performed/provided.
Claims from the State mouthpieces that all the necessary civil operations will be funded have yet to say WHERE the funding is coming from. Is that because there IS no source, yet? And, I don’t think we have that much left in the way of UN-stolen human services grants from other programs to cover the required amounts.
Don’t get me wrong .. I’d like to see taxes come down, too. But I am sooo tired of these half-assed (and half-thought-out) ‘solutions’ that aren’t solutions, really, just timebombs.
bill says
all you politicians and lowlife lawyers are doing very well with money. You can revise all you want. I’m still voting yes for the amendment.
Laurel says
No doubt.