GENERAL ELECTION REFERENDUMS

The following three referendum measures will be included in Florida’s November 3, 2026 General Election ballot. These were driven by the GOP majority Florida Legislature through resolutions. None came from citizen-initiative petitions. Approval requires a 60% majority of votes cast.

Amendment 1 — Budget Stabilization Fund
This would raise the cap on Florida’s “rainy day” reserve fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the state to set aside $750 million or the amount needed to reach that cap (whichever is less), and allow a legislative supermajority to override the requirements in a “critical state need.”

OPPOSITION REASONS: Locks up more state revenue in reserves rather than making it available for current spending. Opposed by the Florida Education Association and the League of Women Voters of Florida,

   RECOMMENDED VOTE: NO

Amendment 2 — Agricultural Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption
This would eliminate taxes on tangible personal property used in farming, ranching, or agritourism — things like tractors, sprayers, and rotary cutters. It has no impact on state revenue but is projected to cost rural counties roughly $29–31 million in lost revenue.

OPPOSITION REASONS: 1) Revenue loss to local governments —  roughly $30 million in lost local government revenue is estimated. 2) Distributional concerns — the exemption would mostly benefit a handful of giant agribusinesses with multiple tangible personal property holdings, rather than helping small family farms broadly

   RECOMMENDED VOTE: NO

Amendment 3 — Property Tax Reform (Homestead Exemption Increase)

The most significant of the three, it would substantially raise Florida’s homestead exemption for non-school-district property taxes: beginning January 1, 2027, the first $150,000 of assessed value would be exempt from taxation for qualifying homestead properties, increasing to $250,000 starting January 1, 2028, with future inflation adjustments beginning in 2029. The measure also references a future legislative schedule for eventually fully eliminating property taxes on homesteads for non-school-district levies.  Local public services that would be cut include: 1) hospitals and health services, 2( public safety, fire rescue, EMT, 3) disaster recovery and climate resilience, 4) programs for kids, seniors and veterans, 5) summer camps, libraries, pools. 5) road and bridge building and repairs, etc. The amendment does not eliminate property taxes for rental properties. This means that rental properties are likely to be burdened with increased taxes given the projected property tax shortfalls that are expected to be passed on to rental property owners and in turn, their tenants.

    RECOMMENDED VOTE: NO

OPPOSITION REASONS:

This proposal, driven by the GOP, is considered a scam and tax shift  will raise costs and cut services to Florida and Collier County residents.

Collier County stands to lose more than $62.9 million in revenue in the first year alone, growing to nearly $121.5 million in the second year. That amount only covers county government — not cities, towns, or special districts like fire and water management districts. Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City would also lose significant revenue. Officials have warned the loss could affect core services like law enforcement, emergency services, and parks, while critics call it a “tax shift” that could push local governments toward other fees or service cuts. This represents 8% and 16%, respectively, of the General Fund Budget of Collier County (special budget that actually pays for police, parks, and general government operations).

This proposal is drawing organized opposition from multiple sectors:

• Law enforcement groups: The Florida Sheriffs Association said approval of the amendment would potentially create longer law enforcement response times and limit communities’ abilities to repair roads. Firefighters’ and police organizations have also formally opposed it.
• Local government/municipal leaders: many mayors and critics say that county and city’s budgets would be significantly affected with revenue losses, thereby seriously affecting the amount and quality of essential services that can be provided locally.
• Fiscal/structural critique: Opponents frame it as “not a tax break but a tax shift that will cause new fees, higher taxes, and cuts to essential local services.” The state’s own Revenue Estimating Conference projected the amendment would cost up to $12 billion annually beginning in 2031 in lost revenue.
• No offsetting state reimbursement: Unlike some prior property-tax amendments, there is no state reimbursement built in for fiscally constrained counties that lose revenue, and nothing stops local governments from raising millage rates or fees to make up the difference — meaning renters, consumers, and small businesses could ultimately absorb costs shifted elsewhere.

        RECOMMENDED VOTE: NO