HomeBallot FL Const. Amendments 2026

Florida Constitutional Amendments 2026

Florida Voters - 3 Constitutional Amendments on the ballot for Nov 3, 2026

Click to see the Palm Beach County referenda on the ballot: PBC Ballot Referenda

Florida Amendment 1
Budget Stabilization Fund

Ballot Language
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.
_____ YES

_____ NO

Synopsis
This amendment is proposed by the Florida State Legislature. The term “revenue collections” refers to the last completed fiscal year’s net revenue collections for the general revenue fund. Budget stabilization funds (BSF) are a form of savings account where states can place revenue, such as tax receipts, that will be used to finance unexpected deficits or emergencies. All 50 states have some form of one. The Florida BSF was created in 1992 after 83% of voters approved a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution currently requires that the balance of the BSF not fall below 5 percent of revenue collections. (The maximum balance allowed is now 10 percent.) The last time that Florida withdrew more money from the BSF than it deposited was in 2008 during the Great Recession.

This proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount of funds that can be retained in the Florida BSF, changing the limit to 25% of annual revenue collections. The Legislature would be required to transfer funds into the BSF each year: either $750 million, or however much is needed to bring the fund up to the 25% limit, whichever is less. Under this proposed amendment, funds could only be withdrawn under three conditions: an emergency, a revenue shortfall and a non-recurring critical state need. The amendment also restrictions the frequency and under what circumstances the Legislature could decide to suspend the annual transfer.

Yes - For the Referendum Means
If voters pass Amendment 1, it would increase the amount of funds held in the Budget Stabilization Fund from 10 percent to 25 percent of revenue collections. It would require an annual transfer to the fund equal to $750 million or 25 percent of the revenue collections (whichever is less). It would define how money can be withdrawn from the fund, and allow the Legislature to suspend the transfer under certain conditions.

No - Against the Referendum Means
It voters reject Amendment 1, Florida would keep the maximum allowable amount of funds in the Budget Stabilization Fund at 10 percent of revenue collections.

Opponents
Florida Education Association, League of Women Voters of Florida

Supporters
Florida Legislature (House 100-1, Senate 29-4).

Florida Amendment 2
Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation

Ballot Language
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.
_____ YES
_____ NO

Synopsis

This amendment is proposed by the Florida State Legislature. It would exempt the value of certain tangible personal property such as farm equipment or tools used in agriculture or agritourism from property taxes. That would happen if the tangible personal property is typically present on agricultural land, and is used for producing agricultural products or for agritourism, and owned by the land’s owner or leaseholder.

Tangible personal property refers to physical, movable assets such as furniture, machinery, tools and equipment. Businesses pay property taxes on equipment used in the business, except for certain exempt categories, including motor vehicles, household goods and the first $25,000 of TPP value for each taxpayer.

The Legislature’s Revenue Estimating Conference says this amendment, if approved by voters, will mean local governments will lose about $31 million annually, beginning in FY 2027-28.

Yes - For the Referendum Means
If voter pass Amendment 2, the Constitution would exclude tangible personal property, such as farm equipment or tools, from the calculation of property taxes if the property is typically present on the agricultural land, used for farming or agritourism, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder.

No - Against the Referendum Means
If voters reject Amendment 2, Florida would continue to include tangible personal property, such as farm equipment or tools, in the calculation of property taxes if the property is typically present on the agricultural land, used for farming or agritourism, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder.

Opponents
Florida Education Association, League of Women Voters of Florida

Supporters
Florida Legislature (House 110-1, Senate 37-0)

More Discussion of Property Tax Proposal - Amendment 3

Florida Amendment 3
Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments

Ballot Language
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.
_____ YES
_____ NO

Synopsis
This amendment is proposed by the Florida State Legislature. If passed, it would become effective Jan. 1, 2027. It would increase the homestead exemption for all property taxes, except those levied by school districts, to up to $150,000 of a home’s assessed value beginning Jan. 1, 2027, and up to $250,000 of the assessed value beginning Jan. 1, 2028. The new exemption values would be adjusted annually for positive inflation growth beginning Jan. 1, 2028. For non-homesteaded residential property and non-residential property, the maximum annual increase in property assessment will decrease from 10 percent to 5 percent, beginning Jan. 1, 2027. (Homesteaded homeowners here fewer than five years would have to wait.)

Currently, for homeowners who permanently reside on their property, $25,000 of assessed value is exempt from all property taxes, including those levied by school districts. A second $25,000 is exempt from all property taxes except those levied by school districts.

The amendment would require the Legislature to set a procedure for counties and municipalities to schedule further exemptions on all homesteaded property up to the remaining assessed value, if a county or municipality chooses to do so. It also limits what counties and municipalities may spend the property tax revenue for: public safety, including law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical service; education and public schools; the finance or refinance of infrastructure; the finance or refinance of natural resource projects; local bonds for uses consistent with approved uses and debt service payments for existing obligations; retirement benefits of local government employees; operations and administration of county officers and commissioners and expenditures they approve, except those prohibited.
If the amendment passes, permanent residents with a homesteaded property will receive significant property tax relief; owners of non-homesteaded property also will receive a break because the amount their assessment can increase each year will be reduced. However, local governments will receive significantly less revenue to fund services these residents use. Since this amendment also dictates how property taxes are spent, local governments are further constrained in how they manage their budgets.

A State analysis says local governments could expect nearly $5 billion less revenue in 2027-28, $8.8 billion less in 2028-29, $9.7 billion less in 2029-30, $10.7 billion less in 2030-31 and $11.9 billion less in 2031-32. These values do not take into consideration the further revenue loss if a county or municipality reduces exemptions more than $250,000.
Among the impacts: ratings agencies expect greater credit pressure for local governments; decreased future revenues would constrain local services; taxing districts such as Children’s Services Councils, hospital districts, mosquito control and water management would feel effects; municipalities would either cut budgets for public services such as parks, libraries, transportation, health and others, or find a way to monetize them with fees. In addition, the safety net initially proposed to aid 29 fiscally constrained counties was eliminated from the final legislation.

The revenue loss could be offset by increasing millage rates and fees and/or making budget cuts. Renters would likely incur additional costs, and businesses could have higher overhead. Counties and cities could rely more on non-advalorem revenues such as local sales taxes, fuel taxes, tourist taxes and water, sewage and garbage rates. New fee-based systems could include fire protection services. Homeowners may still receive a property tax bill to pay for special assessments, which could occur more often. Impact fees charged to new real estate developments to cover expanding public infrastructure could rise to shift the burden of new growth onto developers.

Yes - For the Referendum Means
If the amendment passes, Florida would increase the current homestead property exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 effective Jan. 1, 2027, and then to $250,000 effective Jan. 1, 2028. It also would lower the annual increase cap on non-homestead property from 10 percent to 5 percent. It also would allow the Legislature to dictate how counties and municipalities spend tax revenue.

No - Against the Referendum Means
If the amendment fails, Florida would keep the current property tax structure in place.

Opponents
Florida Tax Watch, Florida Policy Institute, Florida for All, Florida PTA, Florida State Director of MomsRising/MamásConPoder, Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, Florida Rising, Florida Education Association, Pastors for Florida’s Children, SEIU Florida State Council/SEIU 1991, The Tax Foundation, Florida Student Power, Editorial Boards of the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel, Vote No On 3, 3º Degrees Florida, Floridians for Shared Prosperity, League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Professional Firefighters, Florida Fraternal Order of Police, Florida Fire Chiefs Association, Florida Festivals and Events Association, Catalyst Miami, Community Spring, EduVoter Action Network, Equal Ground Education Fund, Families for Strong Public Schools & Voters for Strong Public Schools, Florida AFL-CIO, Florida Voices for Health, NAACP FL State Conference, Progress Florida, UnidosUS, 1,000 Friends of Florida, Florida Rural Economic Development Association

Supporters
Florida Legislature (75-27 House, with 16 not voting; 30-8 Senate, with 2 not voting).

More Discussion of Property Tax Proposal - Amendment 3