It’s small wonder that a circuit court judge wants the language in the November property tax amendment proposal cleaned up.
The somewhat controversial amendment was first proposed and drafted by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Then it went to both the Florida House and Senate.
The House approved its own version of the tax cut proposal. Then the full Legislature took a stab at tweaking it.
This week, a Leon Circuit Court judge ruled it must be rewritten because it is misleading to voters.
“Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination,” Judge David Frank wrote in his 18-page ruling. “The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.”
Groups that oppose the amendment were likely delighted at the judge’s decision. That includes firefighters and police.
It, however, will not affect the placement of the bill on the Nov. 3 ballot. What we see on that ballot, however, might be a little easier to grasp and more to the point — not laced with campaign-like rhetoric.
The judge was responding partially to lawsuits filed about the tax proposal from groups like Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, a nonprofit formed to challenge the proposal; Thomas Campenni, former mayor of Stuart; Michael Davey, former mayor of Key Biscayne; former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee; and former Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg.
Final language that will appear on the ballot must be decided before September to get on the November ballot.
Some of the problems with the wording, according to a News Service of Florida story, included stating “this amendment benefits Florida taxpayers by:” the ballot summary uses the phrases “exempting homestead properties from taxation,” “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents.”
Those phrases are, clearly, “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation.”