Florida Voters Will Decide on a Sweeping Homestead Property Tax Cut This November

Florida homeowners will get the final say this fall on one of the most significant property tax proposals the state has considered in years. During a special legislative session held June 1 through June 3, 2026, the Florida Legislature passed HJR 1F, the "Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes" amendment, sending the question to voters on November 3, 2026. To take effect, the measure must clear the high bar Florida sets for constitutional changes: 60 percent approval at the ballot box.

The amendment would substantially increase the homestead exemption, the slice of a primary residence's assessed value that is shielded from taxation. If voters approve it, the exemption would rise to $150,000 of assessed value beginning with the 2027 tax year, then climb to $250,000 in 2028 and beyond, with future adjustments tied to inflation. The proposal applies only to non-school property taxes, a distinction that shapes both its potential savings for homeowners and its consequences for the local governments that depend on the revenue.

Importantly, nothing has changed on current tax bills. As of mid-June 2026, the measure does nothing more than set up the November question. Homeowners will not see any difference in what they owe until and unless voters ratify the amendment, and even then the first effects would not arrive until the 2027 tax year. For now, the action shifts from the Capitol in Tallahassee to the ballots Floridians will fill out in the fall.

What the Amendment Would Do

At the center of the proposal is a steep increase in the homestead exemption. Under current law, Florida already exempts a portion of a primary residence's value from property taxes, a longstanding feature of the state's tax system. HJR 1F would push that exemption far higher, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 the following year, a change that would meaningfully reduce the taxable value of most owner-occupied homes in the state.

The inflation adjustment built into the measure is designed to keep the exemption's value from eroding over time. Without indexing, a fixed dollar exemption shrinks in real terms as home values and prices rise. By tying future increases to inflation, the amendment aims to preserve the relief it promises rather than letting it diminish year by year.

The most consequential limit in the proposal is its exclusion of school district levies. The expanded exemption would apply only to non-school property taxes, meaning the portion of a typical bill that funds public schools, roughly 40 percent, would remain fully taxable. Homeowners would continue paying the school share at their property's current assessed value, with the new exemption reducing only the county, city, and special district portions of their bills.

That carve-out is significant for how the measure would play out in practice. Because schools account for a large share of most property tax bills, leaving them untouched limits the total reduction a homeowner would see. It also reflects the careful line lawmakers drew between offering relief and protecting the funding stream that Florida's public schools rely on most heavily.

How the Measure Reached the Ballot

The amendment is the product of a special session called by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who unveiled the "Save Our Homes" proposal and pressed lawmakers to act on it. The session, compressed into the first three days of June, moved quickly compared with the pace of a typical legislative debate, reflecting the priority the governor placed on the issue.

Both chambers passed the measure on June 2. The House approved it on a 75 to 26 vote, and the Senate followed at 30 to 9. Those margins cleared the supermajority threshold required to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, though the votes were not unanimous, signaling that the proposal drew opposition even as it advanced.

The governor has framed the amendment as one step in a broader vision. His proposal references a schedule aimed at eliminating most homestead property taxes over time through general law, positioning the November question as the opening move in a larger effort rather than a standalone change. That longer arc has shaped how supporters and skeptics alike are discussing the measure.

For voters, however, the November ballot presents a discrete choice. The question before them is whether to raise the homestead exemption as written, not whether to endorse the wider goal of phasing out property taxes. The amendment's fate rests on the 60 percent threshold that Florida requires for any change to its constitution, a standard that has turned back popular but not overwhelmingly supported measures in the past.

The Case Supporters Are Making

Backers of the amendment cast it as direct, tangible relief for Florida homeowners at a time when housing costs have strained household budgets across the state. By sharply increasing the share of a home's value that is exempt from non-school taxes, the measure would lower bills for owner-occupied properties, with the largest proportional benefit flowing to more modestly valued homes where the exemption covers a greater share of total value.

Supporters argue that the relief is especially meaningful in a state that has seen rapid growth in property values, which can push tax bills higher even when local rates hold steady. For longtime residents and those on fixed incomes, proponents say, a larger exemption offers a cushion against rising assessments and helps people stay in homes they already own.

The inflation indexing is central to that argument. By keeping the exemption's value steady in real terms, supporters contend, the amendment delivers durable relief rather than a one-time break that fades. They point to the indexing as evidence that the measure is designed to protect homeowners over the long run, not just in its first years.

Proponents also frame the proposal within the governor's broader push to reduce the property tax burden statewide. In their telling, the November question is a meaningful and concrete starting point that voters can act on now, with the potential for further reductions through future legislation. They urge Floridians to view it as relief that is available immediately rather than a distant promise.

The Concerns Critics Raise

Opponents and budget watchers focus on the other side of the ledger: the revenue that local governments would lose. Cities, counties, and special districts in Florida rely heavily on property taxes to fund core services, and a sharply higher exemption on non-school levies would reduce the taxable base those governments draw from. Critics warn that the lost revenue could force difficult choices about spending, rates, or services.

The services funded by local property taxes are wide-ranging, including police and fire protection, parks, libraries, road maintenance, and the operations of special districts. Critics argue that a significant reduction in the tax base could pressure budgets for these functions, particularly in jurisdictions where property taxes make up a large share of revenue and where alternatives are limited.

Some skeptics also raise the affordability debate from the perspective of renters, who would not directly benefit from a homestead exemption tied to owner-occupied primary residences. Because the relief flows to homeowners, critics contend, a large share of Florida residents who rent would see no direct reduction in their housing costs even as local governments adjust to lower revenue, an outcome they say deserves scrutiny.

There is also the question of how local governments would respond. To make up for lost revenue, jurisdictions could consider raising millage rates, leaning on other fees, or trimming budgets, and critics caution that the net effect on any given household could depend heavily on local decisions. Supporters counter that the relief is real and that local governments can manage within reduced budgets, leaving voters to weigh the competing claims.

Why the Stakes Are High in Florida

Property taxes occupy an unusually prominent place in Florida's fiscal landscape because the state does not levy a personal income tax. That structure leaves local governments especially dependent on property tax revenue to deliver services, which is part of why a change to the homestead exemption carries such weight. The amendment would touch nearly every owner-occupied home in the state and the budgets of the governments that serve them.

The 60 percent ratification threshold adds another layer of significance. Florida requires that supermajority for constitutional amendments, a standard high enough that measures with majority support have failed to reach it in past elections. That bar means the proposal's fate is far from certain even if it draws broad sympathy, and it raises the stakes of the campaign that will unfold over the summer and fall.

The phased structure of the exemption increase, $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, also means the full impact would build over time rather than landing all at once. That gradual rollout gives local governments some runway to plan, but it also means the most substantial changes to both homeowner bills and local revenue would arrive in the second year, after the first round of adjustments.

For a fast-growing state where housing affordability has become a defining concern, the question cuts to the heart of competing priorities: easing the burden on homeowners while sustaining the services that residents and visitors depend on. Voters will be asked to balance those interests directly when they mark their ballots.

What Happens Next

The immediate next step is the campaign itself. Between now and November 3, supporters and opponents are expected to make their cases to voters, with the governor and the amendment's legislative backers promoting the relief and local officials and budget watchers raising concerns about service funding. Because the measure needs 60 percent approval, both sides have an incentive to mobilize broadly.

If voters ratify the amendment, the new exemption would take effect with the 2027 tax year, raising the homestead exemption to $150,000 of assessed value on non-school taxes, followed by the increase to $250,000 in 2028 and the inflation adjustments thereafter. Homeowners would begin to see the change reflected in their bills for those years, with the school portion remaining unchanged.

If voters reject it, current law would remain in place and the existing homestead exemption would continue to apply. The broader effort to reduce property taxes through future legislation could continue regardless of the outcome, but the specific increases in HJR 1F would not take effect without ratification.

Either way, the decision now rests with Florida voters. The Legislature has done its part by placing the question on the ballot, and the governor has made his pitch, but the constitutional change can only happen if 60 percent of those who cast ballots agree. For homeowners weighing potential savings and for the local governments weighing potential revenue losses, the answer will not come until the votes are counted in November.