And Here is Why We Make This Recommendation
Amendment 1 — Budget Stabilization Fund
Amendment 1 was put on the November 2026 ballot by Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The stated objective is to increase the maximum size of the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy-day fund) from 10% to 25% of the state's general-revenue collections. It would also require the Legislature to put up to $750 million per year into the fund until the 25% ceiling is reached, subject to specified exceptions
Why Vote No?
-
The $750 million a year is money the Legislature can't freely spend elsewhere. The amendment would require the annual transfer until the fund reaches its limit, reducing future legislative flexibility.
-
Florida already has a substantial reserve. The Budget Stabilization Fund currently contains about $5.06 billion, or roughly 9.75% of general-revenue collections
-
The money could potentially address current needs instead. Florida has pressing needs in areas such as healthcare, education, and other public services, and locking additional money away could prevent/make it harder for lawmakers to address those needs.
-
"Critical state need" isn't defined. That leaves future legislators with some discretion over what qualifies. Additionally, there’s an increase in the amount of money the state government would control, which could increase the Legislature's practical leverage over local governments.
Supporters' Perspective
There are 3 key arguments from supporters:
-
More protection during a recession or major emergency. A larger reserve gives the state money to draw on during a severe downturn, hurricane disaster, or major budget shortfall without immediately cutting programs or raising taxes.
-
Less dependence on borrowing or sudden cuts. The basic idea is to save during better fiscal years so that Florida has a cushion when revenues fall.
-
The reserve is relatively difficult to spend. Under the proposed amendment, some withdrawals for a "critical state need" would require a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers.
We recommend a NO vote on Amendment 1
Amendment 2 — Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation
Amendment 2 was put on the November 2026 ballot by Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The stated objective is to exempt tangible personal property located or present on land classified as agricultural or used in the production of agricultural products (farmland) from ad valorem taxation.
Why Vote No?
-
The amendment would reduce local government tax revenue as tangible personal property taxes collected by counties, municipalities, and school districts would be reduced.
-
Florida already exempts up to $25,000 of assessed tangible personal property for qualifying taxpayers. There is no need for an agriculture-specific exemption.
-
The amendment is broader than simply helping small farms. The proposed exemption applies to qualifying property owned by the landowner/leaseholder, so the beneficiaries aren't limited to small family farms.
Supporters' Perspective
​
There are 2 key arguments from supporters:
-
Reducing taxes on agricultural equipment and other qualifying property lowers operating costs for farmers and agritourism businesses. Property taxes on equipment are an ongoing cost.
-
Removing that tax could leave agricultural operators with more money for equipment, labor, maintenance, or other expenses.
We recommend a NO vote on Amendment 2
Amendment 3 – Homestead Exemption & Property Taxes
Amendment 3 was put on the November 2026 ballot by Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The stated objective is to reduce property-tax burdens as Florida home values and household costs have risen. In summary, the homestead exemption would increase substantially, and the assessment growth cap would be reduced.
Why Vote No?
-
The amendment does not offer a replacement revenue stream.
-
Local governments would have to compensate through some combination of spending cuts, higher tax rates on remaining taxable property, or other revenues.
-
Police, fire organizations, hospitals, libraries and local governments have argued that the amendment would substantially reduce the property-tax revenue available for local services and generate budget cuts and a reduced level of service. Parks, youth facilities, and town properties would be significantly impacted.
-
If property taxes go down, the cost of providing police, fire, emergency services, libraries, water, infrastructure and other local services doesn't automatically go down.
-
The outcome, if the amendment should pass, is that local governments would be forced to implement some combination service cuts, higher service fees and other taxes (which can be quite regressive), push the tax burden onto businesses/non-homestead properties, and utilize reserves. And even worse, local governments might be forced to approach the State government for grants and assistance giving more control to Tallahassee.
Supporters' Perspective
There are 3 key arguments from supporters
-
Property taxes have risen substantially as rising home values have driven growth in property-tax collections. Some argue that local governments could have reduced tax rates as property values increased.
-
Reducing property taxes would make homeownership more affordable. The key tool is raising the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. Realtors are supportive as they feel this will help people afford to remain homeowners as other housing costs have risen.
-
Reducing the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5% would limit tax increases on businesses and rental property. This would ultimately benefit businesses, landlords and tenants.
There is also a broader philosophical argument from Republican supporters: local governments have benefited from rising property values without sufficiently reducing tax rates, so taxpayers should receive some of that benefit rather than government automatically collecting more revenue.
We recommend a NO vote on Amendment 3