2026 Elections

🗳️ Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Amendments & Referendums

Statewide Amendments

Amendment 1 — Budget Stabilization Fund: Vote No

What it would change: Florida’s Budget Stabilization Fund is the state’s “rainy-day fund.” The Constitution currently limits its balance to 10% of annual general-revenue collections.

Amendment 1 would:

Increase the maximum balance from 10% to 25%
Require the Legislature to deposit up to $750 million annually until the fund reaches the 25% maximum
Permit the Legislature to suspend a deposit under specified conditions
Allow withdrawals for a “critical state need” if the fund exceeds 15%
Require a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers for a critical-need withdrawal
Prohibit those withdrawals from reducing the balance below 10%

The fund could continue to be used for emergencies and general-revenue shortfalls. The amendment would take effect January 5, 2027.

Argument for: A larger reserve would help Florida withstand hurricanes, recessions, revenue shortfalls and other emergencies without immediately cutting services or raising taxes. Requiring annual deposits could encourage long-term financial planning and reduce reliance on short-term spending during years with strong revenue.

Argument against: Depositing as much as $750 million annually would make that money unavailable for current priorities such as education, housing, healthcare, infrastructure or tax relief. The amendment would also allow withdrawals for an undefined “critical state need,” potentially weakening the argument that the money is being constitutionally protected. Future legislatures would have less flexibility over a substantial portion of state revenue.

Amendment 2 — Agriculture or Agritourism Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption: Vote NO

What it would change: Florida currently provides a general exemption for the first $25,000 in assessed value of a taxpayer’s tangible personal property. Tangible personal property generally includes equipment, tools, machinery, furniture and other physical business property.

Amendment 2 would fully exempt tangible personal property from local property taxes when it is:

Regularly located on land officially classified as agricultural
Used to produce agricultural products or conduct agritourism activities
Owned by the agricultural landowner or the person leasing the agricultural land

The Legislature could establish additional definitions, conditions and limitations. The exemption would first apply to the tax year beginning January 1, 2027. The state Revenue Estimating Conference projects a recurring statewide reduction of approximately $31 million annually in local-government revenue beginning in fiscal year 2027–28.

Argument for: The exemption would lower operating costs for farmers, ranchers and qualifying agritourism businesses. Agricultural equipment can be expensive, and reducing its tax burden could help protect working farms, encourage investment in modern equipment and support Florida’s agricultural economy.

Argument against: Counties, municipalities, school districts and special districts would lose approximately $31 million annually, potentially shifting costs to other taxpayers or reducing local services. The exemption would favor one business sector over other businesses that continue paying tangible personal property taxes. Including equipment used for “agritourism” could also extend the exemption beyond equipment directly involved in food or agricultural production.

Amendment 3 — Homestead Exemption Increase and Non-Homestead Assessment Cap: Vote NO

What it would change for current Florida residents: For homeowners who maintain Florida permanent residence by December 31, 2026, the amendment would increase the homestead exemption for taxes other than school taxes to:

As much as $150,000 in assessed value beginning in 2027
As much as $250,000 beginning in 2028
Annual inflation adjustments beginning in 2029

School-district taxes would remain subject to the existing $25,000 homestead exemption. Therefore, the amendment would primarily reduce taxes levied by counties, cities and certain special districts—not school-board property taxes.

What it would mean for newer residents: Someone who becomes a Florida resident on or after January 1, 2027, would initially receive the existing exemption—generally up to $50,000 for non-school taxes. That homeowner would become eligible for the increased exemption beginning in the fifth year of homestead status, to the extent that this distinction is permitted by the U.S. Constitution.

Beginning in 2030, a county or municipality could shorten that waiting period for a critical local need with a two-thirds vote of its governing body.

What it would change for non-homestead property: The amendment would lower the maximum annual assessment increase for non-homestead property from 10% to 5% for non-school taxes.

This would affect properties such as:

Rental and investment properties
Second homes
Commercial property
Other residential property without a homestead exemption

It limits how quickly the taxable assessment may rise; it does not necessarily reduce the existing assessment.

Additional local options: The Legislature would establish a procedure allowing counties and municipalities to increase their applicable homestead exemptions up to the home’s full assessed value. Special districts could approve additional exemptions through local referendums.

Restrictions on local property-tax revenue: The amendment says county and municipal property taxes may be used for public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt, employee retirement obligations and government operations. However, the language also allows expenditures approved by county officers or local governing bodies unless prohibited by state law, so this provision may have limited practical effect.

Argument for: The amendment would provide substantial property-tax relief to existing homeowners and slow assessment increases for rental, commercial and other non-homestead properties. Supporters argue that rapidly increasing property values have produced tax bills that are increasingly difficult for homeowners and businesses to afford. The lower non-homestead cap could also reduce pressure on landlords and small businesses facing rising assessments.

Argument against: The amendment is expected to significantly reduce revenue for counties, municipalities, and special districts, potentially leading to service cuts, higher tax rates, new fees or a greater burden on properties that receive less relief. Renters do not receive the homestead exemption directly, and there is no requirement that landlords pass non-homestead tax savings to tenants. The five-year waiting period would also treat newer Florida residents differently from people who established residency by December 31, 2026. Because several major policy changes are bundled together, voters cannot separately decide the exemption increase, non-homestead cap, residency distinction and local-revenue provisions.

Countywide Referendums

School Referendum: Vote Yes

“Referendum Renewal of Existing Ad Valorem Levy for Teachers, Instructional Personnel, Student Safety and Security”

Every Miami-Dade voter will decide whether to renew the existing one-mill property-tax levy from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2031. The money would be used for:

Improved compensation for teachers and instructional personnel
Student safety and school security
Miami-Dade public schools, including charter schools
Oversight by a citizen advisory committee

This is a continuation of the existing levy, not a newly added mill. The calculation is based on the property’s taxable value for school purposes, not necessarily its market value or purchase price. Florida’s homestead rules can make the taxable value lower than the market value.

Miami-Dade Public Schools estimates that the levy would:

Generate approximately $585 million annually
Cost the “typical homeowner” less than $316 per year
Equal approximately 86 cents per day for that typical homeowner

Argument for: A Yes vote supports continuing the one-mill property-tax levy through June 2031. It would preserve the revenue currently used for teacher compensation and school safety.

The principal argument in favor is that eliminating approximately $585 million annually could cause the district and charter schools to reduce teacher supplements, struggle with educator recruitment and retention, or find another way to pay for required safety personnel.

Argument against: A No vote opposes renewing the levy. The current authorization would expire in 2027.

Argument against:The principal argument against renewal is that it continues a significant property-tax charge and places more responsibility for employee compensation and safety expenses on local property owners. Renters do not pay the tax directly, but landlords may incorporate property-tax expenses into rent.

Independent Salary Commission: Vote YES

Miami-Dade’s charter currently fixes a county commissioner’s base salary at $6,000 per year, a figure unchanged since 1957. This amendment would remove that fixed salary and give an independent five-member commission authority to set commissioner salaries annually.

Members would be appointed by:

The chief judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
The state attorney
The public defender
The executive director of the Commission on Ethics
The county inspector general

The panel would consider commissioners’ responsibilities, comparable counties, benefits, inflation, the county’s financial condition, and the need to attract qualified candidates. Any salary could not exceed the amount established under Florida’s formula for commissioners in non-charter counties. Its decisions would be final; county commissioners could not modify them.

Argument for: A $6,000 salary makes it difficult for people without independent income or another job to serve. An independent body, not commissioners themselves, would set a more realistic salary.

Argument against: The panel could approve a substantial salary increase, and voters would lose direct control over commissioner pay. Commissioners also receive benefits, retirement contributions, allowances, and office resources beyond the $6,000 base salary.

Synchronizing vacancy elections: Vote YES

What it would change: This addresses vacancies created when a county mayor or commissioner resigns to run for another office. If an official submits an irrevocable prospective resignation, the County Commission could arrange the replacement election to coincide with an already scheduled election. The winner would take office when the resignation becomes effective and serve the remainder of the term.

The amendment would also establish minimum standards for municipal candidate-qualifying periods, making it more feasible to coordinate municipal and county elections.

Why this matters locally: The recent District 5 vacancy illustrates the issue. The resignation and appointment timeline resulted in Vicki Lopez being appointed temporarily, followed by a separate election process. This amendment would let voters choose a successor during an existing election whenever timing permits.

Argument for: It could reduce special-election costs, avoid lengthy appointed service, and increase turnout by placing the contest on an established election ballot.

Argument against: Aligning elections could delay filling a vacancy. It also gives the County Commission more discretion over election timing and imposes countywide qualifying standards on municipalities.

Elected constitutional offices: Vote No

What it would change: Florida’s Constitution required Miami-Dade to restore independently elected constitutional officers beginning in 2025:

Sheriff
Tax collector
Property appraiser
Supervisor of elections
Clerk of the circuit court and comptroller

Miami-Dade’s charter still contains provisions written under the former system, when several of these functions operated as county departments. The amendment would update the charter to reflect the new structure. It would also:

Clarify the division of finance and budget responsibilities between the county government and the clerk/comptroller
Require a Miami-Dade County employee to take a leave of absence when running for an elected constitutional office

Argument for: It brings the county charter into line with the Florida Constitution and clarifies which independently elected office controls particular responsibilities.

Argument against: Several distinct changes are bundled into one yes-or-no question. A voter might support the technical updates but oppose requiring employees to take leave—or vice versa.

Miscellaneous and technical changes: Vote YES

What it would change:

Update outdated names of county facilities and locations
Replace gender-specific or inconsistent language
Correct numbering, capitalization and grammar
Allow legally required notices to be published through any method authorized by state law, rather than specifically requiring a daily newspaper
Allow county commissioners to establish a quorum or participate electronically when Florida law permits it
Permit ordinances to be identified at meetings by a unique legislative number rather than necessarily being read by title

Argument for: It modernizes outdated charter language, allows newer public-notice methods and gives commissioners flexibility to participate remotely when state law allows.

Argument against: The label “technical changes” understates potentially substantive provisions concerning public notice and remote participation. Electronic notice may be less accessible to residents who rely on newspapers, and virtual participation could reduce in-person accountability.

Expanded advertising in parks: Vote NO

What it would change: The charter currently allows commercial advertising in protected parks only when connected to sponsorship of a park event or facility. This amendment would remove that connection requirement. The county could sell other types of advertising in parks if:

It does not unreasonably interfere with public use
It does not damage the park
All revenue is used exclusively for the park system

For example, advertising theoretically could be permitted even if the advertiser is not sponsoring a specific event, program or facility.

Argument for: Advertising could provide additional money for park maintenance, improvements and programming without raising taxes.

Argument against: It could increase commercial signage and corporate advertising in public parks. The term “unreasonably impair” leaves considerable discretion over how much advertising is acceptable. Article 7 historically gives Miami-Dade parks especially strong protection from commercialization.

Stay Election Ready

Don’t miss important election deadlines, voter updates, and ways to take action in Miami Beach.

Volunteer With Us

Help us reach voters through outreach, reminders, and election-season action.