Constitutional amendments

A "Yes" vote means

A YES vote raises the constitutional cap on the state's rainy-day reserve (the Budget Stabilization Fund) from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections; requires the Legislature to deposit each year the lesser of $750 million or the amount needed to reach the cap, except in a year when the fund is drawn down for an emergency or revenue shortfall, or (no more than once every five years, by a two-thirds vote of each house) when the Legislature finds a critical state need that exceeds the transfer; and allows the Legislature to withdraw money for a nonrecurring 'critical state need' when the fund's principal exceeds 15% of general revenue collections and two-thirds of each house approves, in addition to existing withdrawals for emergencies and revenue shortfalls (LWVFL analysis of the amendment text, July 21, 2026).

A "No" vote means

A NO vote keeps the current constitutional structure: the fund is capped at 10% of general revenue collections, and existing rules for deposits and withdrawals (for emergencies and revenue shortfalls) remain unchanged.

Who supports it, and why

• Republican Party of Florida: Endorsed Amendment 1 in September 2026. Party statement (quoted by WUSF, Sept. 15, 2026): 'This amendment will help strengthen Florida's rainy day fund so the state can handle storms, downturns, and other emergencies without raising taxes or raiding the budget.'
  Sources: wusf.org · floridianpress.com
• Florida Legislature (bipartisan referral vote): HJR 5019 passed the House 100-1 and the Senate 29-4 on June 16, 2025. Former House Speaker Daniel Perez cited the state's lack of reserves during the 2000s recession as the reason to build a larger cushion (WUSF).
  Sources: flsenate.gov · wusf.org

Who opposes it, and why

• Gov. Ron DeSantis: On Sept. 14-15, 2026 the governor called Amendment 1 'a foolish constitutional amendment proposal,' said 'we already have a maxed out rainy day fund and have run the largest surpluses in state history,' argued surplus revenue should go to tax cuts and removing tolls, and recommended a NO vote (WUSF, Sept. 15, 2026, fetched).
  Sources: wusf.org · clickorlando.com · cfpublic.org
• House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell (legislative debate): Argued the money would be better spent on immediate needs: 'You don't get to talk about saving money for a rainy day when it's still raining, and it's already raining on the people in Florida' (quoted in WFLA/Hoodline coverage; search snippet, Sept. 2026).
  Sources: wfla.com · hoodline.com
• No organized opposition campaign identified: The League of Women Voters of Florida's July 21, 2026 analysis lists 'Opponents - None known at this time' and takes no position on Amendment 1; Florida TaxWatch, Florida Policy Institute, the Florida Chamber and Americans for Prosperity had no published position found as of Sept. 17, 2026. Explanatory coverage (Bradenton Times, VOTE411) notes the trade-off that mandatory deposits reduce money available for current-year spending or tax cuts.
  Sources: lwvmanatee.org · thebradentontimes.com · onyourballot.vote411.org

A "Yes" vote means

A YES vote exempts qualifying tangible personal property (for example tractors, irrigation equipment and other farm machinery) that is normally kept on agricultural land, used to produce agricultural products or for agritourism, and owned by the land's owner or lessee, from county, city, school and special-district property taxes beginning with the 2027 tax year, and lets the Legislature define and limit the exemption by law.

A "No" vote means

A NO vote keeps current law, under which tangible personal property used in agriculture remains subject to local ad valorem taxation (subject to the existing $25,000 tangible personal property exemption).

Who supports it, and why

• Florida Farm Bureau Federation: 'Vote YES on Amendment 2' (Sept. 11, 2026): 'Florida farmers and ranchers pay annual taxes on farm equipment that was already taxed when it was purchased.' The Farm Bureau says the exemption covers equipment, not land or buildings, and that 'reducing the cost of doing business for Florida farmers and ranchers would protect local food production, preserve family farms and keep Florida agriculture strong for future generations.' (page fetched Sept. 17, 2026)
  Sources: floridafarmbureau.org
• Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson: Called Amendment 2 'a pivotal step towards securing the permanent future of agriculture in Florida' that would eliminate 'burdensome multiple taxation of agricultural production.'
  Sources: mynews13.com
• Florida Legislature (sponsor Rep. Danny Alvarez; near-unanimous referral): The sponsor argued the exemption removes a financial barrier for farmers and lets them reinvest in operations (Ballotpedia snippet); the joint resolution passed 110-1 and 37-0.
  Sources: flsenate.gov · ballotpedia.org

Who opposes it, and why

• Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando): Cast the only vote against HJR 1215, saying it would cost local governments about $30 million with no guardrails to prevent windfalls and would mostly benefit large agribusinesses with multiple tangible-property accounts (Ballotpedia snippet).
  Sources: ballotpedia.org
• No organized opposition group identified: The League of Women Voters of Florida analysis (July 21, 2026) lists 'Opponents: None known at this time' and takes no position; Florida TaxWatch, Florida Policy Institute, Florida Association of Counties, Florida League of Cities, the Florida Chamber and Americans for Prosperity had no published position on Amendment 2 found as of Sept. 17, 2026. Explanatory coverage notes the exemption reduces local revenue and shifts a share of the local tax burden away from agricultural operations.
  Sources: lwvmanatee.org · thebradentontimes.com

A "Yes" vote means

A YES vote raises the homestead exemption that applies to county, city and special-district (non-school) taxes from the current $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, indexed to inflation afterward; requires the Legislature to set a uniform procedure by which counties and cities may raise the exemption for their own levies up to a home's full assessed value, and lets special districts do the same with voter approval; phases the larger exemption in for people who are not Florida residents on Dec. 31, 2026 (they get the existing exemption first and the increased exemption starting in their fifth year of exemption); lowers the annual assessment-increase cap on non-homestead property (rentals, second homes, businesses) from 10% to 5%; and limits county and municipal property-tax spending to public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, employee retirement benefits, and operations and administration, with other spending allowed if approved by county officers or governing bodies unless general law prohibits it. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2027. The $25,000 school-tax exemption and the existing 3% Save Our Homes assessment cap for homesteads are unchanged.

A "No" vote means

A NO vote leaves the current homestead exemption (up to $50,000, of which $25,000 applies to school taxes), the existing Save Our Homes 3% cap, and the 10% non-homestead assessment cap in place.

Who supports it, and why

• Florida Realtors ('Vote Yes on 3' campaign): Launched the Vote Yes on 3 campaign Sept. 9, 2026 (reported with a $10 million commitment). 2026 president Chuck Bonfiglio Jr.: 'Affordability is on the forefront for every Floridian, and they need meaningful relief.' The association says the amendment 'offers voters an opportunity to provide meaningful property tax relief while strengthening Florida's commitment to attainable homeownership.'
  Sources: floridarealtors.org · clickorlando.com · wlrn.org · voteyeson3.com
• Republican Party of Florida: Endorsed Amendment 3 (with Amendment 1) in September 2026. Chair Evan Power: 'Floridians work hard for what they have. Government should not spend it all.' (WLRN, Sept. 16, 2026)
  Sources: wlrn.org · floridianpress.com
• Gov. Ron DeSantis: Called the June 2026 special session that produced CS/HJR 1F and has said he will promote the measure (WLRN, Sept. 16, 2026); he has also said the final version 'wasn't my proposal' (CBS Miami, search snippet).
  Sources: wlrn.org · cbsnews.com · flhouse.gov
• Florida Legislature (sponsor: House State Affairs Committee / Rep. Overdorf): House leadership sponsored the joint resolution to lock a larger homestead exemption into the constitution, slow assessment growth on non-homestead property and limit what local property taxes may fund; it passed 75-26 and 30-9.
  Sources: flhouse.gov

Who opposes it, and why

• League of Women Voters of Florida: Formally opposed Amendment 3 on Aug. 24, 2026, citing its positions against restricting revenue through the constitution and in favor of local home rule. President Jessica Lowe-Minor: 'We don't want to put our communities and the services we love at risk because of a confusing ballot amendment.' The League's July 2026 analysis lists local governments, libraries, special districts and renters among those affected.
  Sources: lwvspa.org · lwvmanatee.org
• Florida League of Cities: Says 'Amendment 3 is not a tax cut, it's a tax shift': when property-tax revenue drops, costs for public safety, stormwater and roads move to 'renters, businesses, and the neighbors who didn't get the break.' Lobbyist Matt Singer (July 9, 2026): 'One person's tax exemption is another person's tax increase'; the League says 85 of 411 municipalities could not fund public safety under a $250,000 exemption. City-by-city impact packets, including Bushnell and Wildwood, are posted on its property-tax page.
  Sources: flcities.com · tampabaybeacons.com
• Florida Association of Counties: Published county-by-county revenue-loss estimates (Sumter County: about $24.9 million in FY 2027-28 and $45.1 million in FY 2028-29 for county levies) and warned that the 29 fiscally constrained counties could lose a fifth to a third of their revenue; the LWVFL analysis lists FAC among opponents. FAC's readers guide itself presents the figures as a baseline impact assessment without a formal vote recommendation.
  Sources: fl-counties.com · lwvmanatee.org · wptv.com
• Florida Policy Institute: Its voter guide (updated Sept. 15, 2026) says the amendment would cut nearly $12 billion a year in recurring local revenue, that local governments would face service cuts, higher taxes and fees, or both, and that renters, consumers and small businesses would bear shifted costs; it notes roughly 3 million renter households get no direct benefit.
  Sources: floridapolicy.org · floridapolicy.org
• Florida Sheriffs Association: Said it is 'significantly concerned' that the revenue loss could affect funding for law enforcement and other county services without a replacement revenue source.
  Sources: clickorlando.com · floridaphoenix.com
• Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd: Called the amendment 'a train wreck' at an August 2026 news conference, warning of cuts to public-safety budgets.
  Sources: wtxl.com
• Florida State Fraternal Order of Police; Florida Professional Firefighters; Florida Fire Chiefs Association: Formally opposed or warned against the amendment, citing the risk to police, fire and EMS funding without a replacement revenue source.
  Sources: wptv.com · clickorlando.com
• American Planning Association, Florida Chapter: Opposes the amendment; president Allara Mills-Gutcher said the chapter supports tax relief in principle but 'there was a decision made to put it on the ballot without any kind of analysis, without any kind of data' (WLRN, Sept. 16, 2026).
  Sources: wlrn.org
• Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava: Reported in September 2026 to be leading a 'No on 3' effort, arguing the cut would hollow out local budgets.
  Sources: politicalcortadito.com
• Other opponents listed by the LWVFL analysis (July 21, 2026): The League's analysis lists Florida PTA, Florida Education Association, SEIU Florida, Florida Rising, Florida For All, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Tax Foundation, 'Vote No On 3' and the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel among opponents; these were not individually verified in this pass.
  Sources: lwvmanatee.org