September 15, 2026

Voter Guide: What Floridians Should Know About Amendment 3

This guide was originally published on Aug. 7, 2026. On Aug. 13, the state of Florida provided updated ballot language on Amendment 3, as a circuit judge had required. FPI updated the guide on the publication date above to reflect the new language.

Amendment 3 is on the Florida ballot in 2026. The amendment would increase the exemption on homesteads, create a pathway for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteads, and reduce the assessment growth cap on non-homesteaded properties.

1. If Amendment 3 passes, local governments face deep cuts to revenue. Florida families would see cuts to services, increased taxes and fees, or a combination of both.

Under Amendment 3, Florida counties, cities, towns, villages, and special taxing districts —which include public hospitals, children’s services councils, water management districts, and more — would see a significant reduction in property tax dollars that currently go toward public services. State economists predict that Amendment 3 would reduce local revenue by nearly $12 billion on a recurring basis.[1] (See Figures 1 and 2.) As a result, local governments would have to decide whether to cut funding for these services or raise revenue by other means.

2. The loss of property tax dollars under Amendment 3 would ultimately shift costs onto renters, consumers, and small businesses as local governments look to generate revenue.

According to the Tax Foundation, if voters approve Amendment 3, “[e]liminating such a sizeable share of Florida’s property tax base would not reduce the cost of providing local government services; it would simply require that the lost revenue be generated elsewhere, including from higher millage rates on all property that remains taxable.”[2] In other words, Amendment 3 would lead to a cost shift as localities turn to non-homesteaded properties like rental units or commercial properties to raise property taxes.

If property taxes increase for commercial properties, all businesses end up paying more, and they would have to decide whether to absorb those costs or shift them onto renters and consumers.

3. A court ordered Florida’s attorney general to rewrite the ballot language for Amendment 3.

Florida’s Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County ruled that the original ballot title read like a “political slogan” that “endorses” the amendment while “divert[ing] voters from its actual effect.”[3] The court also found the ballot summary lacking, stating that “the present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.” Since the court found the original language “defective,” Florida’s attorney general had to revise the statement. As a result, the attorney general rewrote the title and summary to reflect the court’s suggestions.

 

 

Notes

[1] Office of Economic and Demographic Research analysis of HJR 1-F, June 12, 2026, https://edr.state.fl.us/content/conferences/revenueimpact/archives/2026F/_pdf/impact0612.pdf.

[2] Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, “The Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to ‘Save Their Homes?’” Tax Foundation, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/florida-property-tax-proposal/.

[3] Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language et. al. v. Cord Byrd et. al., No. 2026 CA 1254 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Aug. 3, 2026) (final order granting summary judgment).

Downloadable Resources

There are no attachments currently.
No items found.