Florida’s 2026 Homestead Exemption Ballot Fight: What the Lawsuit Gets Right & Why It Matters

A Property Tax Proposal Turned Ballot Language Case

Florida’s proposed 2026 property tax overhaul is no longer just a legislative development. It is now an active ballot language dispute with real implications for voters, local governments, and tax advisors.

The Legislature approved CS/HJR 1-F during a special legislative session convened June 1–3, 2026. That compressed timeline is significant. It helps explain both the rapid passage of the proposal and the immediate scrutiny that followed.

The measure proposes amendments to Article VII of the Florida Constitution, including changes to homestead exemptions, nonhomestead assessment limitations, and local ad valorem taxation authority.

Shortly after passage, Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language Inc., along with former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni and former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey, filed suit challenging the ballot language.

The issue is not whether taxes should go down. It is whether the ballot title and summary accurately describe what the amendment actually does.

What CS/HJR 1-F Actually Does

The proposal increases the homestead exemption for levies other than school district taxes:

$150,000 beginning January 1, 2027
$250,000 beginning January 1, 2028

After 2028, the exemption is adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.

The amendment reduces the annual assessment increase limitation for certain nonhomestead real property from 10 percent to 5 percent beginning in 2027.

This affects commercial real estate and other nonhomestead assets. It is a meaningful change, but it is not a direct small-business exemption.

The amendment also restricts the permitted uses of county and municipal ad valorem taxes to enumerated categories such as public safety, infrastructure, and government operations.

It further creates distinct future mechanisms, including:

Authority involving special districts to adjust exemptions via referendum
Separate provisions allowing counties and municipalities, beginning in 2030, to address residency-based requirements in response to local needs

These mechanisms are separate and should not be conflated into a single “local referendum” framework.

The “Full Elimination” Issue

One of the most significant omissions in many summaries—but central to the lawsuit—is the concept of eventual “full elimination” of homestead property taxes.

The ballot summary presents a framework suggesting that non-school homestead property taxes could ultimately be eliminated. However, the constitutional text does not mandate that result. Instead, it authorizes the Legislature to create procedures that could allow further increases in exemption amounts.

The lawsuit alleges this creates a misleading impression of certainty where only discretionary authority exists.

For SALT practitioners, this is a critical distinction. It goes directly to voter understanding and statutory interpretation.

The Ballot Language Challenge

The plaintiffs argue that the ballot title and summary are misleading in several respects.

First, they contend the language suggests the $250,000 exemption applies immediately, when the text clearly phases it in.

Second, they challenge multiple descriptive phrases in the ballot summary:

“Ensuring funding for core services”
“Protecting small businesses”
“Ensuring fairness for Florida residents”

According to the complaint, these statements either lack support in the amendment’s text or mischaracterize its impact, particularly on local government revenues and nonhomestead property.

Third, they challenge the neutrality of the ballot title itself.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the language is misleading and materially false.

Why the 60 Percent Threshold Matters

Even if the amendment survives judicial scrutiny, it must be approved by at least 60 percent of Florida voters to pass.

This supermajority requirement raises the stakes of ballot clarity. Any ambiguity or perceived overstatement in the ballot summary can materially affect the outcome.

For advisors, that means legal sufficiency and voter perception are inseparable.

Why Local Government Revenue Is Central

The result is a fundamental policy tension. While homeowners could benefit from significantly reduced property tax liability, local governments may face substantial revenue constraints. Public estimates suggest the amendment could reduce local government revenues by billions of dollars annually, which helps explain why the revenue implications have become a central issue in the litigation.

The Litigation Timeline Matters

Ballot language challenges in Florida are handled on an expedited basis.

Realistically, the outcomes here are limited to:

• Judicial approval of the ballot language
• Court-ordered revision of the ballot title and summary

The plaintiffs are not seeking removal of the measure from the ballot. Instead, the focus is on ensuring that voters receive an accurate description of the amendment’s legal effect.

What Tax and Legal Professionals Should Watch

For lawyers, the case raises important questions about the relationship between ballot summary language and the underlying constitutional text. Courts may also provide guidance on how discretionary and mandatory provisions should be presented to voters, as well as whether revisions to the ballot language could materially affect voter understanding. The amendment’s references to the potential elimination of homestead property taxes are likely to receive particularly close scrutiny.

For CPAs and other tax advisors, the proposal has significant implications for tax modeling, planning, and long-term property tax projections. Businesses should note that the amendment does not create a targeted small-business exemption. Instead, the primary benefit for nonhomestead property owners is the reduction of the annual assessment cap from 10 percent to 5 percent.

Until the litigation is resolved and voters act on the proposal, taxpayers, advisors, and businesses should avoid treating the amendment as current law. Any planning decisions should be based on existing Florida property tax rules rather than the potential outcomes of CS/HJR 1-F.

The SALT Takeaway

CS/HJR 1-F is one of the most consequential Florida property tax proposals in decades.

But the key issue right now is not the size of the exemption.

It is whether the ballot language accurately reflects what the amendment actually does—and does not do.