Full Breakdown
Florida Lawsuit Challenges Ballot Language of Homestead Exemption Amendment
6/18/2026, 2:08:48 AM
The Lawsuit and the Amendment
A group operating as Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, Inc. has filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court seeking a judicial order to rewrite the official ballot summary for the constitutional amendment known as HJR 1-F. The amendment, drawn by Republican legislative leaders, would raise Florida’s homestead exemption from the current $50,000 to $150,000 beginning next year and to $250,000 by 2028. Plaintiffs argue the summary is “biased and misleading” and fails to disclose the fiscal impact on local governments.
Legislative Background and the Measure
HJR 1-F passed during a special session of the Florida Legislature earlier this month. The amendment’s proponents contend it expands tax relief for homeowners while preserving funding for “core services.” Florida law enacted in 2011 authorizes the attorney general to adjust ballot language when the statutory summary exceeds the 75-word limit, a provision cited by the state as a reason the wording can be expanded without violating the limit.
Key Stakeholders
- Michael Davey, former mayor of Key Biscayne – plaintiff.
- Thomas Campenni, former mayor of Stuart – plaintiff.
- Jamie Cole, attorney for the plaintiffs.
- Governor Ron DeSantis, Republican governor of Florida.
- Attorney General James Uthmeier, responsible for ballot language under state law.
- Secretary of State Cord Byrd, named in the lawsuit.
- Florida Association of Counties, which commented on the tax-service trade-off.
Financial Impact Estimates
Plaintiffs cite internal calculations that a “yes” vote would remove nearly $14 billion from city and county budgets in the first two years of implementation. The estimate breaks down to $5 billion in fiscal year 2027-28 and $8.8 billion in fiscal year 2028-29. While school property taxes would be exempt, the plaintiffs contend that funds for police, fire protection, parks, recreation, and garbage collection would be reduced.
Official Positions & Responses
Governor DeSantis has asserted that the ballot summary is “not misleading” and emphasized the need for a swift judicial review because ballots are expected to be printed in August for the general election. He noted that recent legislative tweaks allow more descriptive language within the statutory framework and described the amendment as “necessary because that’s the way Florida has allocated the power with respect to tax and property.” The Florida Association of Counties warned that lower taxes “can be expected to result in lesser services on the local level.”
Opposition & Criticism
The plaintiffs contend that the amendment’s language promises protection of “core services” while, in practice, it would drain resources for essential municipal functions. They label the measure a “power grab” intended to centralize authority in Tallahassee at the expense of local governments and residents. Critics also argue that renters and newcomers after the end of the year would receive no tax relief, undermining the claim of broad fairness.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Everybody wants to pay less taxes, right? But when you pay less taxes, on the local level, you can expect lesser services from the community,” — Michael Davey, former Key Biscayne mayor
- “This is a power grab. This is an attempt by Tallahassee to centralize power, in a small group of individuals up there, to the detriment of local municipal governments and municipal residents.” — Michael Davey
- “WE NEED TO GET A RESOLUTION ON THIS PRETTY QUICKLY.” — Governor Ron DeSantis
- “WE’RE GOING TO GO, I THINK WE’LL WIN AT THE TRIAL COURT, BUT IF YOU DON’T, THEN YOU GOT TO GO AND DO A QUICK APPEAL.” — Governor Ron DeSantis
Conflicting Views on Ballot Language
Plaintiffs maintain the summary is deceitful and omits the projected $14 billion budget cut, while Governor DeSantis and his administration argue the language accurately reflects the amendment and is not misleading.
Upcoming Judicial and Electoral Steps
The court is expected to rule on the request for a rewrite before ballots are finalized for August printing. If the judge orders a revision, the attorney general may be required to draft new language, and the plaintiffs indicated they are prepared to appeal promptly.
