JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Florida voters will decide on three statewide amendments on their 2026 ballots.
To pass, each needs at least 60% of voters to say yes.
We know the legalese and political language that wind up on the ballot can be confusing, so we’re breaking down what voters need to know about what a yes or a no will mean for each amendment.
VOTER’S GUIDE: Check out info on the candidates and local referendums on your ballot
Amendment 1 — Budget Stabilization Fund (“rainy day” fund)
Florida’s Budget Stabilization Fund, created in 1992, is a reserve the state can use during revenue shortfalls or emergencies. All 50 states have some form of such a fund, but they are paid for and administered differently.
Currently, the Florida Constitution caps the Budget Stabilization Fund at 10% of the previous year’s general revenue collections, and requires that it not fall below 5%.
That means the current maximum for the fund is about $5 billion.
Amendment 1, if passed, would change that.
What the ballot summary says:
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.
Amendment 1
So to break it down:
-
A Yes vote would: Raise the cap to 25% and require the Legislature to transfer up to $750 million into the fund each year, until it reaches that cap. Transfers can be suspended in certain circumstances, including when the state has withdrawn money for a shortfall or emergency. With a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber, the Legislature could also suspend a transfer for a critical state need—no more than once every five years. Once the fund reaches 15% of revenue collections, lawmakers could use some funds for a critical state need, provided the balance would not fall below 10%. The amendment does not define “critical state need.”
-
A No vote would: Keep the current 10% cap and avoid the new annual deposit requirement. Existing rules would continue to govern deposits and withdrawals.
In brief: A yes vote favors building a substantially larger state reserve and making regular deposits mandatory, with specified exceptions. A no vote preserves more legislative flexibility over how state revenue is allocated.
Who is in favor?
According to reporting from Jax Today, support for the amendment is not split across party lines.
For example, the Republican Party of Florida endorsed the amendment, but Gov. Ron DeSantis opposes it, going so far as to call it “foolish.”
And some local Democratic groups recommend a no vote, while Democratic nominee for governor David Jolly says he supports the amendment.
Jolly’s opponent, U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, is a no.
The government spending watchdog group Florida TaxWatch is somewhat iffy on the amendment, saying that while it does think the 10% max on the fund should be increased, locking in $750 million payments to the fund each year for such a long time could be a bad idea.
Florida TaxWatch said it was a tough call but that, in the end, it recommends a yes vote on Amendment 1.
Amendment 2 — Property-tax exemption for qualifying farm and agritourism equipment
This amendment would give some tax breaks to those who work in Florida’s agricultural industry.
Specifically, it focuses on tax exemptions for tangible personal property—so things like machinery, equipment, and tools; not land or buildings—that are typically found on agricultural land, are used to produce agricultural products or for agritourism, and are owned by the landowner or leaseholder.
The exemption would begin with the 2027 tax year.
What the ballot summary says:
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.
Amendment 2
So to break it down:
-
A Yes vote would: Exempt qualifying farm- and agritourism-related equipment and other personal property from property taxes. The Legislature would set details and limits by law.
-
A No vote would: Leave the property under current tax rules, including the existing general exemption for the first $25,000 of assessed tangible personal property available to businesses.
In brief: A yes vote would provide additional tax relief to eligible agricultural operations. It would also reduce local property-tax revenue; one legislative estimate put the reduction at about $31 million annually, beginning in 2027–28. A no vote keeps the current system.
Who is in favor?
The Florida senator who sponsored the bill is himself a farmer and said the amendment would give farmers a break on the cost of doing business.
But critics point to the current rule allowing a property tax exemption for the first $25,000 in tangible personal property for all businesses, including farms.
Florida TaxWatch argues that the $25,000 exemption should be increased across the board, so it supports the amendment.
Amendment 3 — Homestead exemptions, property assessments, and local spending
By far the most hotly debated of this year’s amendments, Amendment 3 is also considered the most confusing when it comes to wording on the ballot.
The amendment combines several property-tax changes related to homestead exemptions.
A homestead exemption allows homeowners who use a property as their primary home to exempt a portion of its assessed value from property taxes, reducing the amount they owe to the government.
Amendment 3 would expand the non-school property tax exemption from $25,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.
That would mean there would be two separate homestead exemptions: a larger exemption for non-school property taxes and the existing $25,000 exemption for school property taxes.
The amendment would also give the Legislature a way to establish more local homestead exemptions, lower the assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property, and limit how local governments use property-tax revenue.
According to reporting from WUSF, a state economic analysis predicts passing the amendment could cost local governments nearly $5 billion in the first year and $9 billion the next year, with an eventual recurring impact of nearly $12 billion.
Amendment 3 also affects non-homestead properties, like businesses and rental units. Right now, the taxable value of those properties can rise by as much as 10% a year. The amendment would cut that in half to a max of 5% a year.
What the ballot summary says:
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.
Amendment 3
So to break it down:
-
A Yes vote would: Increase the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward. This would reduce eligible homeowners’ taxable value for non-school levies; it would not reduce school property taxes. The amendment also directs the Legislature to set a process for counties and municipalities to increase exemptions further, potentially up to the home’s full assessed value. Those who move to Florida starting next year would have to live in the state for five years before they could qualify for the new exemption. Separately, it lowers the annual assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property from 10% to 5% and restricts property-tax spending to listed categories, including public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee retirement benefits, and government operations.
-
A No vote would: Keep the current homestead exemption structure, the 10% assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property, and existing local-government discretion over property-tax spending.
In brief: A yes vote would lower non-school property taxes for many established homesteads, while also constraining local revenue and budgeting. A no vote leaves current rules in place. The amendment’s exemption does not apply to renters directly, and the reduced cap applies to non-homestead property—not the separate “Save Our Homes” cap for homesteaded properties.
Who is in favor?
The short answer is Florida’s Republican leadership. From Sen. Rick Scott to Gov. Ron DeSantis to Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia, the state’s current leaders want to see this amendment pass.
They argue that the exemption would benefit Florida taxpayers, while forcing local governments to “find all their waste and get rid of it” because their budgets would shrink.
That budget shrinking is what has opponents concerned, however, particularly those in charge of public safety services in local governments.
Among the organizations that have voiced opposition to the amendment are the Florida State Fraternal Order of Police, Florida Sheriffs Associations, Florida Professional Firefighters, Florida Association of Counties, Florida League of Cities, 1000 Friends of Florida, and the Florida Policy Institute.
Florida TaxWatch also raised a different concern: the speed with which the amendment reached the ballot, saying, “The largest fiscal change in the history of Florida government should not be sent to the ballot one week after the initial proposal surfaced.”
That rushed process is why the organization recommends a no vote on Amendment 3.
Copyright 2026 by WJXT News4JAX – All rights reserved.