Overview
- Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank heard consolidated arguments on Wednesday, July 29, over whether the amendment’s title and summary are legally neutral or read like a political pitch.
- Plaintiffs say the title “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” uses emotional language and that the summary omits key costs and implementation details that would mislead voters.
- State lawyers counter that the ballot text must only state the amendment’s chief purpose and be read as a whole, not include every technical detail or hypothetical consequence.
- Official fiscal estimates from the Revenue Estimating Conference show the proposal would cut local property-tax revenue by about $5 billion in its first year and roughly $11.8–$12 billion once fully phased in, a point plaintiffs use to argue voters need fuller disclosure.
- The court ordered proposed rulings by early August, and if the judge finds the language defective the attorney general would have 10 days to rewrite it, creating a compressed timeline for counties that begin ballot work before the Aug. 18 primary and could trigger expedited appeals.