Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies in the Legislature gave no more thought to fairly describing the property tax amendment than to its disastrous consequences for Florida — that is, none.
But a state judge in Tallahassee, David Frank, did not mince words about the deception of Amendment 3. He started a clock Monday night, giving Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to rewrite it without propaganda, as state law requires.
The judge cannot throw the question off the ballot. As Frank noted in his 18-page order, whether it passes is “the exclusive domain of the voters.”
But voters will now see a more honest description of it — if Uthmeier gets the message.
The judge wisely kept jurisdiction of the case to review Uthmeier’s new words.
The deadline for the state to approve November ballot language is later this month. It is not clear what happens next if Uthmeier’s rewrite fails to satisfy the judge.
It’s in Uthmeier’s lap now
Uthmeier is a protégé of Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose office wrote Amendment 3. It would be much better if a neutral party, not someone running for office, had rewrite duty.
However Amendment 3 reappears, it is still the worst possible remedy that state politicians could prescribe for the rising costs of home ownership.
State economists, with sterling reputations for accuracy, say cities, counties and special districts would lose nearly $5 billion in the first year, and nearly $12 billion in five years, if voters approve the amendment.
They should vote no.
The many defects of Amendment 3, which we have previously derided as “shameless propaganda,” start with its politically skewed name: “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.” It doesn’t offer a dime of replacement revenue for cities and counties that serve as front lines against crime, fire, natural disasters and public health threats.
Public safety advocates are alarmed. Even sheriffs, who curry favor with the Legislature at every turn, are “significantly concerned” about the amendment (that’s a “no” without saying “no”).
“The title is more akin to a political slogan,” the judge wrote. “It is not fair or neutral. It adopts a policy position.” He contrasted it with a 1992 tax-limitation amendment that the Supreme Court allowed on the ballot with its neutral language: “Homestead Valuation Limitation.”
Telling half the story
Moreover, the judge noted, property taxes paid indirectly by renters might go higher, and their homes wouldn’t qualify for the limitations.
He found the ballot summary equally misleading.
It tells voters, he wrote, “that the amendment ‘benefits Florida taxpayers.’ Whether the amendment would ‘benefit’ taxpayers is the central policy question voters are being asked to decide. The ballot summary then sets forth three political taglines — ‘Ensuring funding for core services,’ ‘Protecting small businesses,’ and ‘Ensuring fairness for Florida residents’ — giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal. But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption.”
He found those three promises misleading, too. The amendment offers no money for police and fire protection or other core services and nothing for small businesses except to expose them to potentially higher taxes to make up for lost revenue.
The title was also misleading, Judge Frank wrote, by eventually promising “full elimination” of non-school taxes, and instead of assuring “fairness for Florida residents” it would discriminate against renters and new homeowners who would have to wait five years for the full $250,000 exemption.
A dirty dozen defects
Frank found 12 defective statements, and highlighted them in bold type. Uthmeier’s homework assignment could not be clearer.
The abbreviated titles and summaries of proposed constitutional amendments are critical because the lengthy full text never appears on the ballot.
Throughout his eight years, DeSantis has exploited his office for propaganda purposes to serve his still unrequited national political ambitions. And the Legislature has too willingly obliged him. Only a minority of its members, most Democrats, opposed Amendment 3. The rest should pray silently that it fails.
The judge’s ruling shows with great clarity the urgent need for a free and politically independent judiciary in Florida.
All Floridians owe thanks to him and to the people who sued to overturn the ballot language. They include former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes and the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, which represents the lead plaintiffs.
“We are not trying to deprive the voters from the opportunity to vote on this important issue,” wrote the firm’s managing partner, Jamie Cole. “We want to ensure that when they vote they are able to make an informed decision. That is only possible if the ballot title and ballot summary are fair and accurate.”