Amendment 3 Opposition Keeps Growing — And A ‘Yes’ Campaign Is Nowhere In Sight

The final major policy initiative of the Gov. Ron DeSantis era continues to face headwinds, as yet another group has mobilized against a proposed constitutional amendment that would raise homestead exemptions to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

Floridians for Shared Prosperity has launched a website opposing what voters will see in November as Amendment 3, which the group calls a “devastating tax shift onto working Floridians and seniors” and “a massive tax break for billionaires and large corporations, not for you.” The committee, a coalition of labor groups, nonprofits, community leaders and students, is campaigning under the tagline “Save Our Services — No on 3.”

As POLITICO’s Kimberly Leonard first reported, familiar names are orchestrating the effort: the Florida Policy Institute’s Holly Bullard, who is chairing the committee, and Jackson Peel, best known as a spokesperson for House Democrats in recent years, who will direct communications.

This is the third group to mobilize against the amendment. Vote No on 3 and 3 Degrees Florida oppose the measure on similar grounds. To pass, the amendment needs support from 60% of voters.

Beyond political committees pushing back, opponents are also bringing their fight to courtrooms.

The third lawsuit challenging the proposal was filed earlier this month by former Sen. Jeff Brandes and former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson. Brandes is a maverick Republican who has argued against the proposal for months, while Lawson is a Democratic political mainstay who served many years in the Florida Legislature before being elected to the U.S. House.

DeSantis anticipated opposition to the proposal, saying that “entrenched interests” would come out against the significant proposed changes to local government revenue streams. But legislators who supported the plan, albeit with modifications that included not making the tax cut applicable to schools, may have been surprised by the Governor’s subsequent unwillingness to stump for the final product.

The Governor said he supports the plan, but the differences between what he wanted and what the Senate and House delivered mean he will not be campaigning for it this year. That could give opponents of the proposal a unique runway to make their points.

Should the proposal pass, local governments would be limited to funding public safety, infrastructure, schools, debt service and pensions through any remaining property tax revenue. The offices of county constitutional officers such as Elections Supervisors, Clerks of Court and Property Appraisers would also be funded, as would County and City Commissions.

For other spending not covered, local governments would be left with unappetizing options. They could raise assessments and fees, or rely on Tallahassee to backfill funds through the state budget process. Either way, help may be needed to maintain current levels of service.

The Office of Economic and Demographic Research estimates roughly $11.86 billion would eventually be drained from local budgets each year. That money would likely come from services provided to residents.

Commuter counties with less commercial development and more revenue derived from homestead property taxes would be, proportionately, hit hardest, according to some estimates. St. Lucie could face the steepest loss at 35% of its revenue, with Clay, Baker, Citrus and Hernando counties all facing losses of more than 30%.

Flagler, Volusia, Hernando and Sumter counties would each see at least two-thirds of homes potentially impacted by the proposed homestead exemption increase.

Larger urban counties would absorb the biggest hit in raw dollars, according to the Florida Association of Counties. Miami-Dade would see a $445 million revenue decrease as soon as Fiscal Year 2028-29. By the same point, Hillsborough could lose $353 million, Broward roughly $326 million, Duval $277 million, and Orange $253 million.