Another Amendment 3 Challenge, Filed By Bipartisan Pair Of Former Legislators

By Christine Sexton and Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix

July 7, 2025

Florida’s bid to dramatically change its property tax system is being hit with another legal challenge, this one from a bipartisan duo of former elected officials who maintain a proposed constitutional amendment is full of “political platitudes” and not factual statements informing the public what it would do.

Former state Sen. Jeff Brandes and former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson allege the wording of the ballot title and summary doesn’t comply with the requirement that ballot statements represent a fair and accurate summary of what the amendment would do, as adopted by voters.

“Plaintiffs bring this action because the Ballot Statement does not comply with this simple but fundamental requirement. The voters who must decide on the sea change proposed by the Legislature are not being given the full and accurate story they deserve,” attorneys with Tallahassee’s Spellman Law firm wrote in the challenge.

The lawsuit lays out four reasons that the property tax overhaul — known as Amendment 3 — should be blocked from the ballot, including that its political rhetoric is designed to persuade, makes inaccurate statements, and is misleading.

“As a result of these fatal flaws, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring the Ballot Statement from appearing before voters at the 2026 general election. Before making such radical changes to property taxes, the voters deserve — and Florida law requires them — to be fairly informed about the changes they are making,” the suit claims.

Brandes, a Republican, served as a state senator between 2012 and 2022 and was a state representative for two years immediately before that. Lawson, a Democrat, represented Florida’s Fifth Congressional District from 2017 to 2023. Before that, he was a member of the Florida Legislature for 28 years, having served in the Florida House and Senate.

This is the third active challenge to the proposed amendment. While the courts cannot completely block Amendment 3 from going before voters, the case could result in the measure being rewritten by Attorney General James Uthmeier if judges side with those challenging it.

One path for constitutional amendments to go before Florida voters is through citizen-driven initiatives, although the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis successfully championed changes that made it more difficult for grassroots organizations to pursue that avenue.

Another route is for a supermajority of the Legislature to pass a resolution. Amendment 3 was approved by the Florida Legislature in the form of HJR 1 F during a hasty special legislative session in early June.

The amendment is based on a plan drafted by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Although the governor had been discussing the elimination of property taxes for more than a year he narrowed his plan to targeted homestead property taxes, increasing the existing homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000.

The governor’s initial proposal also would have enshrined in the Constitution a trust fund to help provide local governments hurt financially by the tax cut with grants to fund “core services.” The proposal didn’t define core services, nor did it identify a source of funding for the trust fund.

But the Legislature agreed to pass HJR 1 F, a modified version that exempted public education and constitutionally required local government offices from any potential reductions.The modified plan also eliminated the trust fund.

DeSantis has since distanced himself from the proposal, saying he’ll vote but not campaign for it.

Meanwhile, a group called Stop Unfair Tax Shifts has been launched and website, VoteNoOnAmendment3.com, created.

Amendment 3 would maintain the existing homestead tax exemption for residents moving to Florida in 2027 and buying homes to live in. It would increase the homestead exemption for longstanding property owners to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

The amendment would reduce the allowed rate of growth for non-homesteaded property assessments and create a path for full elimination of non-school property taxes on homestead properties.

As passed by the Legislature, HJR 1F includes the ballot title and summary for Amendment 3, the former dubbed, “SAVE OUR HOMES FROM EXCESSIVE PROPERTY TAXES.”

Attorneys who filed the lawsuit argue Florida law requires the ballot title to be objective, neutral, and fair, but the existing title “stacks the deck in favor of Amendment 3 and invites an emotional response from voters.”

To underscore their point, attorneys highlight the 12 historical constitutional amendments on homestead property taxes and their ballot summaries, including a 1991 amendment with the summary, “HOMESTEAD VALUATION LIMITATION.”

“This title does what a title should do; it informs the voters, neutrally and without rhetoric, of what the amendment does,” the attorneys wrote of that amendment.

The summary for Amendment 3, however, which says the amendment “benefits Florida taxpayers” by “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses,” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents” — also is flawed, they contend.

“Instead of an objective and neutral explanation of what the Amendment does, it contains nothing more than political talking points,” the suit notes.

“No doubt the proponents are persuaded by the merits of their proposal, but equally passionate opponents will argue that the tax is regressive, harmful, unfair, and dangerous to the health and safety of Florida’s citizens. These arguments — pro and con — are for the campaign trail, not the ballot summary.”

The Florida Phoenix, a nonprofit news site that’s free of advertising and free to readers, covers state government and politics through a mix of in-depth stories, briefs, and social media updates on the latest events, editorial cartoons, and progressive commentary. The Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and a coalition of donors and readers.