Official Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3.
We have very important decisions to make for our individual counties and for the state of Florida. After Tuesday, Nov. 3, more than an estimated eight million Floridians will have cast their votes, not only for the Florida Governor and cabinet officials, but also members of Congress and members of the Florida House and Senate. However, the most confusing decisions seem to be the amendments that show up every two years. The language in these amendments can be confusing.
For this election, the three proposed constitutional amendments originate from one source: the Florida Legislature. Each amendment proposal needs at least 60% of the Florida votes to be enshrined in the Florida Constitution.
Here are this year’s three Florida Amendments: spelled out; broken down; pros and cons listed; what supporters say is good about the amendment; what opponents say is bad about the amendment; and how I am voting, and why.
AMENDMENT 1:
Budget Stabilization Fund
Ballot Language: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to increase the amount of funds that may be retained in the budget stabilization fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the legislature to transfer the lesser of $750 million or the amount required to reach 25% of the general revenue collections each year unless certain conditions are met, and allow the legislature to withdraw funds for critical state needs.”
Description - Raises the cap on Florida's budget stabilization ("rainy day") fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue, requires annual transfers into the fund and sets conditions for withdrawals.
In Short – This amendment proposes to raise the limit of the Budget Stabilization Fund, commonly known as the "rainy day fund," from 10% to 25% of the state's general tax collections. This Rainy Day Fund is used to cover unexpected expenses or budget shortfalls, ensuring that Florida has more resources available during financial crises. Amendment 1 would change the state Constitution to allow the fund to grow to a larger percentage of general revenue.
The Budget Stabilization fund was voted on and approved in 1992. Since that time, the only time that any money has been withdrawn was during the Great Recession (2008-2009).
If this amendment passes, the committee has estimated that $750 million would need to be set aside each year, until the Rainy Day Fund reaches the proposed 25% of revenue limit. This money would be restricted from being appropriated toward other priorities within the state.
A Yes Vote will jump the Budget Stabilization Fund from 10% to 25% of net general revenue. The legislature would have to move up to $750 million a year into the fund until it hits that limit.
A NO vote will leave the law the same: requiring that at least 5% of the prior year’s net revenue be kept in the Budget Stabilization Fund with a maximum cap of 10% of that revenue.
Supporters say:
Raising the limit, thus saving more money for the fund each year, would better protect the state from hurricanes and other emergencies. They feel it would strengthen Florida’s long-term financial position. They also say it would make Florida better prepared when/if another recession hits.
This amendment reached the ballot by the Florida Legislature … 100-1 in the House and 29-4 in the Senate.
Opponents say:
They are not “against” Florida saving for emergencies; that is already being done with the 10% cap. They question whether setting aside hundreds of millions of extra dollars each year is the best use of state revenues, at a time when the state is facing needs in other areas. They say that $750 million could be used to address current priorities, such as tax relief, infrastructure, education, healthcare and other public services. They also say there is a concern of changing our constitution to reflect such a large mandated increase, and that decisions regarding the appropriate size of the state’s reserves and annual deposits should remain matters of legislative budgeting, instead.
The main opponent of Amendment 1 is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He stated, “We already have a maxed out Rainy Day Fund […] What they’re saying is we have to increase the max of that and mandate that a certain amount of money goes into that every year, and then it can be used for quote ‘critical needs.' With that, we have enough surplus. We should be focusing on how to return that to you, the taxpayer.”
My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1
Florida has $4.9 Billion in the Budget Stabilization Fund as of right now. The last time Florida pulled any money out of the Rainy Day Fund was in 2008, amid the recession. Nationally speaking, Florida sits near the top of all the states’ Rainy Day Funds. In fact, Florida is the fifth largest in the nation, covering about 47 days of expenses, which is well above the 50-state median of roughly 26 days.
In my opinion, if Florida has these extra millions of dollars lying around ($750 million), then why not try to use some of it to help our already overtaxed taxpayers?
AMENDMENT 2:
Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation
Ballot Language: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to exempt tangible personal property habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land from ad valorem taxation. If approved, this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027.”
Description - Exempts tangible personal property used in agricultural production or agritourism, that is located on agricultural land, from ad valorem taxation, effective for tax year 2027.
In Short – Floridians on agricultural land pay annual taxes on their farm equipment and other “tangible personal property” – basically everything of value that isn’t the land or the buildings on it. Florida law already allows certain personal goods, such as cars, to be exempted from that tax.
This proposed Amendment 2 would end those personal property taxes for Florida farmers.
A Yes Vote supports providing a tax break to Florida farmers and the agriculture industry by exempting tangible personal property used in the production of agricultural products, owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the land.
A NO vote will change nothing in our laws and agricultural entities will continue to pay property taxes on their tangible personal property like other businesses.
Supporters say:
Farmers are the lifeblood of our state and we should help remove barriers to help ensure their survival. By voting yes, you are voting for farmers and ranchers to be given the chance to reinvest their money in themselves to insure we all have a better tomorrow, with food on our plate.
Key Supporters: Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson and the Florida Farm Bureau Federation
Opponents say:
This bill would have a $30 million fiscal impact for local governments. They also say it would mostly benefit a handful of giant agribusinesses, and they think there could be a more targeted approach to support smaller business owners and farmers. They also say that for every tax break you give to one, you must take away from someone else.
My opinion – VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 2
Agriculture is vital to Florida’s economy. It is the second-largest industry (after tourism). The governor’s office says there are 45,000 farms and ranches in the state, “supporting 2.5 million jobs,” and generating a $387 billion economic impact on Florida’s economy. Will the small counties feel the impact of losing those taxes? Yes, they will. However, those of us who live in these small counties also know how hard it is for our farmer friends to even stay in business and make ends meet. If our farmers cannot make ends meet, they will eventually stop trying (or go bust) and they will stop farming. That is less food on our (Florida's/America's) plate. I am sure all the opponents of this bill do not live in small rural counties and do not understand the hard work and dedication that our farmers put into their “jobs.”
Have you thanked a farmer lately? Well, this is how you can … vote YES on Amendment 2.
AMENDMENT 3:
Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homesteaded Property Assessments
Ballot Language: “This amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same. Persons who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by general law, notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, which allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their respective purposes. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.”
Description - Increases the homestead property tax exemption on a phased schedule, requires a path toward eliminating non-school homestead taxes, restricts local governments' use of property tax revenue, and lowers the assessment growth cap on other property.
In Short – This proposal would raise the homestead tax exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and then $250,000 in 2028. That would mean Florida property owners could see big cuts in their property taxes. It also would be a significant loss for local governments’ budgets.
As the law stands now, the ‘homestead exemption’ gives Floridians a cut on their property tax for the land that they LIVE on. People who own multiple properties can only get the exemption on their main residence. This amendment seeks to lower the cap on how much property taxes can increase for non-homesteaded properties (second homes or businesses, etc.), making it harder for these taxes to rise sharply.
Under this amendment, only people who are Florida residents by Dec. 31, 2026 could receive the tax break for their primary residence. Others who move to Florida after that date would be able to claim the higher tax break after five years.
Overall, Amendment 3 is designed to provide financial relief to homeowners by reducing their property tax burden.
A Yes Vote means increasing the current $51,411 homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and to $250,000 in 2028 - and then increasing it annually by inflation. This means a lower property tax bill, but it would not eliminate all property taxes. Homeowners who are not permanent Florida residents as of December 31, 2026 could receive a $50,000 homestead exemption during their first five years of permanent homeowner resident status, and would then become eligible for the same exemption as existing Florida residents, after five years. A yes vote would also potentially benefit other property that landowners own. Certain non-homestead property could go from being assessed at 10% to 5%.
A NO vote will change nothing in the laws. A “no” vote means you want to keep the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes at $51,411 and continue increasing it annually by inflation. The annual cap on non-homestead property assessment increases would remain at 10 percent.
Supporters say:
The main contention is that this is needed to stem the rapid rise of property taxes in Florida and that Florida families need tax relief. If the amendment passes, individual homeowners could save thousands of dollars depending on the assessed value of their home. Not only will homeowners save money on their homestead, but this would offer additional protection to owners of non-homestead residential and commercial property. Supporters also argue that reducing property tax revenue could encourage local governments to control their spending. (The passing of this amendment also put a constitutional restriction on how counties and cities spend property-tax revenue.)
This amendment and proposal was pushed initially by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said local governments have mismanaged their money and that he believes people should not have to repeatedly pay the government for their own property.
Key Supporters: Florida GOP, Florida Realtors
Opponents say:
Focus on the large fiscal impact to local governments, as it will require extensive budget cuts to essential services like police and fire protection. They also say it will require new or increased taxes to fund services that people need and expect.
Other opponents have suggested there will be an influx of people moving to Florida. They say, “not only do we have zero income tax here, but we will have zero property tax here.”
Cities and counties across the state could lose nearly $12 billion by 2031 if the amendment passes. Groups like the Florida League of Cities have raised concerns about the tax cut leading to more costs being put on local residents and renters, and saying that when revenue drops, cities still need to maintain public safety, stormwater systems and road repairs.
Another concern voiced by many is how hastily this proposed amendment was put on the ballot, as it was passed by the Legislature a week after it first surfaced.
Key opponents: Florida sheriffs, Florida firefighters
My opinion - VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 3
According to Florida Tax Watch: Property taxes now total $59.2 billion (FY2025-26). This rise is nearly twice as fast as the combined growth of population and inflation. Not only are our property taxes rising fast, but so is our insurance, housing and other living costs. For years, the burden of carrying “all the weight” has been put on the landowner. It is true, as the Governor said, we should not have to repeatedly pay the government thousands of dollars to own our own property. This amendment will help lesson the burden of the landowners and small business owners who are trying to make ends meet.
This amendment will, in fact, put a financial burden on local government because of less tax money coming in. In my opinion, it is time our local governments (and state) start having better budgets and control the unnecessary spending. They will have to start watching every penny that is spent more closely, just like we all have to do, in our daily lives and in our businesses. We are living in a world where county employees are getting 5% and 6% increases in salary each year. No one in the private sector can get those increases. No Mom-and-Pop business owner can give their employees that kind of of pay increase. Hopefully, cost savings and cutting unnecessary spending would be part of all local governments’ responses to Amendment 3, should it pass.
On a side note, if the government has an extra $750 million to drop into a Rainy Day Fund (Amendment 1), they can throw that $750 million a year into offsetting the property tax.