Florida Voters Guide 2026 November 3, 2026 General Election

Constitutional amendments

Statewide questions on every Florida ballot. Each needs at least 60% "Yes" to pass. Arguments are attributed to the organizations and officials making them; this guide takes no position.

Amendment 1 · HJR 5019 (2025 Regular Session), sponsored by Rep. McClure. Passed the House 100-1 and the Senate 29-4 on June 16, 2025; signed by officers and filed with the Secretary of State June 17, 2025 (flsenate.gov bill page, fetched Sept. 17, 2026).

Budget Stabilization Fund

Official ballot summary

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.

VERIFIED verbatim against the Division of Elections booklet PDF and the Sumter County sample ballot (Sept. 17, 2026). Earlier text in this file spelled out 'percent' and capitalized 'Legislature'; the official text uses '10% to 25%', 'the legislature' and '25% of the general revenue collections'.

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.

Estimated fiscal impact

Legislatively referred amendments do not carry a Financial Impact Estimating Conference statement. The League of Women Voters of Florida's analysis (July 21, 2026) summarizes the legislative fiscal statement as 'indeterminate, but likely insignificant' for the state. The measure directs up to $750 million a year of general revenue into the fund until the 25% cap is reached, which reduces general revenue available for other spending or tax cuts in those years; the FY 2025-26 state budget already set aside a $750 million deposit contingent on voter approval (Florida TaxWatch budget summary, search snippet). For FY 2024-25 the fund held about 9.3% of general revenue collections (LWVFL analysis).

Sources: lwvmanatee.org · floridataxwatch.org · flsenate.gov · wusf.org

Recent developments

Independent analyses

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
  • Florida TaxWatch: Recommends a Yes vote; notes the $750 million annual transfer would take about 22 years and $16.4 billion to reach the 25% cap.
    Sources: Florida TaxWatch: Taxpayer guide to the 2026 constitutional… (2026-09-17)

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
  • League of Women Voters of Florida; Florida Education Association: The League's VOTE411 synopsis of the 2026 amendments lists the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Florida Education Association as opponents of Amendment 1.
    Sources: lwvfl.org
Sources: constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · elections.sumtercountyfl.gov · flsenate.gov · constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · flhouse.gov · lwvmanatee.org · wusf.org · clickorlando.com · onyourballot.vote411.org · thebradentontimes.com · floridianpress.com · ballotpedia.org
Amendment 2 · CS/HJR 1215 (2025 Regular Session), sponsored by the House State Affairs Committee and Reps. Danny Alvarez, Barnaby, Chamberlin, Fabricio, J. López, Maggard, Owen, Salzman and Yarkosky. Passed the House 110-1 on April 25, 2025 and the Senate 37-0 on May 2, 2025; filed with the Secretary of State June 18, 2025 (flsenate.gov bill page, fetched Sept. 17, 2026).

Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation

Official ballot summary

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.

VERIFIED verbatim against the Division of Elections booklet PDF and the Sumter County sample ballot (Sept. 17, 2026). The earlier file was missing the second sentence about the Jan. 1, 2027 effective date; the summary does not mention the Legislature's power to define terms (that appears only in the amendment text).

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).

Estimated fiscal impact

Legislatively referred amendments do not carry a Financial Impact Estimating Conference statement. The Legislature's bill analysis reports that the Revenue Estimating Conference projected no state impact and a negative recurring impact on local government revenues of about $31 million beginning in FY 2027-28 (LWVFL analysis citing the analysis; a Senate analysis snippet gives $31 million in 2027-28, $32.3 million in 2028-29 and $33.6 million in 2029-30). Rep. Anna Eskamani cited roughly $30 million when casting the lone no vote.

Sources: lwvmanatee.org · flsenate.gov · flsenate.gov · mynews13.com

Recent developments

Independent analyses

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
  • Florida TaxWatch: Recommends a Yes vote; cites the state estimate of about $31.0 million in lost local and school revenue in FY 2027-28, rising to $33.6 million by the third year.
    Sources: Florida TaxWatch: Taxpayer guide to the 2026 constitutional… (2026-09-17)

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
  • League of Women Voters of Florida; Florida Education Association: The League's VOTE411 synopsis of the 2026 amendments lists the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Florida Education Association as opponents of Amendment 2.
    Sources: lwvfl.org
Sources: constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · elections.sumtercountyfl.gov · flsenate.gov · constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · lwvmanatee.org · floridafarmbureau.org · flsenate.gov · flsenate.gov · mynews13.com · ballotpedia.org · thebradentontimes.com
Amendment 3 · CS/HJR 1F (2026 Special Session F), sponsored by the House State Affairs Committee and Rep. Overdorf; the special session on property taxes was called by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Passed the House 75-26 and the Senate 30-9 on June 2, 2026; filed with the Secretary of State June 16, 2026 (flhouse.gov bill page, fetched Sept. 17, 2026; the LWVFL analysis reports the House vote as 75-27). Ballot title and summary rewritten by the Attorney General under court order in August 2026.

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

Originally titled "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes". A Leon County circuit judge (David Frank) ruled Aug. 3-4, 2026 that the original title ('Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes') and summary were misleading and not neutral; the state chose not to appeal, the Attorney General released rewritten language Aug. 13-14, 2026, and the Division of Elections booklet updated Aug. 21, 2026 and the Sumter County sample ballot both carry the rewritten title and summary (verified Sept. 17, 2026). floridaphoenix.com · floridapolitics.com · floridaphoenix.com · wflx.com · joneswalker.com · cbs12.com

Official ballot summary

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.

VERIFIED verbatim (five paragraphs) against the Division of Elections booklet PDF and the Sumter County sample ballot (Sept. 17, 2026). The earlier file omitted the fourth paragraph (restricting what counties and municipalities may spend property taxes on) and the effective-date sentence; both are on the official ballot.

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.

Estimated fiscal impact

Florida's Revenue Estimating Conference (state economists) projected the amendment would reduce local non-school property tax collections by about $4.9-5.0 billion in FY 2027-28, $8.8 billion in FY 2028-29, $9.7 billion in FY 2029-30 and $10.7 billion in FY 2030-31, with a recurring impact of about $11.86 billion a year when fully phased in (LWVFL analysis; Florida Chamber; Florida TaxWatch). Sumter County: the Florida Association of Counties' county-by-county table (June 2026, county levies only) estimates -$24.9 million in FY 2027-28 and -$45.1 million in FY 2028-29 for Sumter County ($24.3M/$43.8M from the homestead exemption plus $0.6M/$1.3M from the 5% cap); County Administrator Bradley Arnold told commissioners in July 2026 the county could lose about $16 million the first year and $45 million the second (Villages-News, July 12, 2026). The Legislature's staff analysis (h0001z.SAC, June 16, 2026) accompanies CS/HJR 1F.

Sources: fl-counties.com · villages-news.com · lwvmanatee.org · floridataxwatch.org · flchamber.com · wctv.tv · flhouse.gov

Recent developments

Independent analyses

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
  • Florida TaxWatch: Recommends a No vote, citing a $45.8 billion five-year cut in local revenue and a shift of the tax burden to non-homestead property.
    Sources: Florida TaxWatch: Taxpayer guide to the 2026 constitutional… (2026-09-17)
  • Senate President Ben Albritton (R-Wauchula): Voted to put Amendment 3 on the ballot but said on Oct. 21-22, 2026 he will vote no, saying it 'would eliminate up to 30% of resources for Florida's rural counties.'
    Sources: cbs12.com
  • Former Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples): Voted to put the measure on the ballot but told a Greater Naples Chamber event on Sept. 30, 2026 that she will vote against it, citing the effect on local governments.
    Sources: gulfshorebusiness.com · flaglerlive.com
Sources: constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · elections.sumtercountyfl.gov · flhouse.gov · constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov · lwvmanatee.org · lwvspa.org · flcities.com · tampabaybeacons.com · fl-counties.com · villages-news.com · floridapolicy.org · floridapolicy.org · floridataxwatch.org · floridataxwatch.org · flchamber.com · floridarealtors.org · wlrn.org · wctv.tv · wptv.com · clickorlando.com · clickorlando.com · floridianpress.com · pcpao.gov · floridaphoenix.com · wflx.com · joneswalker.com