Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Amendment 3

Increased Homestead Exemption and Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments Amendment

On the ballot

Florida · November 2026 general election · Legislative referral · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Government structure, Housing, Taxes and revenue

In plain language

Amendment 3 would raise Florida's homestead exemption for all property taxes other than school district levies to the first $150,000 of assessed value in 2027 and the first $250,000 in 2028, adjusted for inflation after that. People who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026 would receive the existing exemption first and the larger one beginning in their fifth year. The annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead property, such as rentals and commercial buildings, would fall from 10 percent to 5 percent. Counties and municipalities could spend property tax revenue only on purposes the amendment lists. Florida constitutional amendments take 60 percent voter approval to pass.

Fiscal impact

The Florida House of Representatives' final bill analysis of CS/HJR 1F reports that the state Revenue Estimating Conference estimated cash impacts on local non-school property tax revenues of -$4.95 billion in Fiscal Year 2027-28, with the $150,000 exemption in place, and -$8.78 billion in Fiscal Year 2028-29, with the $250,000 exemption in place. The recurring impact in all years is estimated at -$11.86 billion. The analysis describes the fiscal impact on the state itself as indeterminate but likely insignificant. Florida's Financial Impact Estimating Conference prepares statements for citizen initiatives; because this measure is a legislative referral, no such statement was issued.

Summarized from the official fiscal analysis listed in the sources below. Figures are the state's, not this site's.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who called the June 2026 special session that referred the amendment, says property tax revenue collected by local governments has nearly doubled in seven years and is projected to reach $83 billion by 2032, and that Florida homeowners need relief.
  • State Sen. Bryan Avila (R-39) says the amendment provides relief for Florida families while protecting businesses from large assessment increases and safeguarding local funding for education, law enforcement and infrastructure.
  • Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia (R) says the complaints come from governments that would have to cut back, and that the state is siding with taxpayers rather than treating them as “an endless ATM.”
  • Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) says counties can absorb the reduction by cutting waste rather than critical services such as fire, police or schools.

What opponents say

  • Sadaf Knight, CEO of the Florida Policy Institute, says the measure is a cost shift rather than a cost saving, and would force local governments either to cut services families rely on or to raise other taxes and fees.
  • Bryan Desolge, chairperson of the committee campaigning against Amendment 3 and a former county commissioner, says bills for public safety, roads, bridges, stormwater protection and hurricane response do not go away, and that the change would shift those costs onto renters, homebuyers and small businesses.
  • Audubon Florida says the amendment does not define terms such as “natural resource projects,” and that local conservation land acquisition, land management and habitat restoration programs might not qualify for property tax funding as a result.
  • Mayor Donna Deegan (D-Jacksonville) says the reduction would lead to deteriorating roads, closures of libraries, pools and parks, slower public safety response times, and worsening housing affordability.
  • Plaintiffs in Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language v. Byrd argued the Legislature's original ballot statement was biased, misleading and inaccurate. On August 3, 2026, Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank ruled the title and summary “clearly and conclusively defective” and ordered Attorney General James Uthmeier to submit corrected language; the Division of Elections now publishes the rewritten title and summary above.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.