Property Tax Update: Final Order Granting Summary Judgment

Published on August 06, 2026

A Leon County judge has ordered the State to rewrite the ballot language for the statewide property tax amendment set to appear on the November general election ballot, ruling that the current title and summary are "clearly and conclusively defective.” Circuit Judge David Frank issued the Final Order Granting Summary Judgment Monday, August 3, following a July 29 hearing on three lawsuits that had been consolidated into a single case challenging the ballot title, "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes”. 

Frank wrote that the ballot title and summary must "pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot," adding, "They fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten."  

The order bars the Secretary of State from placing the current ballot language on the general election ballot and gives the Attorney General 10 days to draft replacement language that will then be provided to county supervisors of elections. 

 Specifically, the court found the following: 

• “Simply put, the proposed ballot title does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it endorses it and diverts voters from its actual effect.” 

• “Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination.  The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.”  

Notably the court recognizes that: 

• “the proposed amendment does not ensure funding for policy, fire protection, schools, infrastructure of any other core public service, nor does it create any restrictions on how proposer tax revenues may be expended.  In fact, by substantially reducing the local property tax base, the proposed amendment is likely to decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services” 

• “the proposed amendment broadly limit future assessment increases on all categories of non-homesteaded property, and provides no protection to small businesses or other non-homesteaded property, from the expected higher taxes resulting from increases in millage rates necessary to offset (at least partially) the loss of a tax bases caused by the amendment.” 

• “the actual proposed constitutional language does not require full elimination” (of non-school property tax). 

• “the proposed amendment would discriminate against Florida Residents who rent their homes (single family or multi-family) by providing tax relief only to owners of homestead properties thereby increasing the burdens on renters who will likely pay more when their landlords pass on the increased property taxes resulting from higher millage rates.”