On June 2, 2026, in the final hours of Florida's Special Session 2026F, both chambers passed CS/HJR 1F — "Save our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes" — a constitutional amendment proposing changes to Article VII, Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the Florida Constitution and creating a new section in Article XII. The companion statutory bill, CS/SB 4F — "Property Tax Administration", was enrolled the same day. The Democratic alternative, HJR 11F, was filed at 12:07 PM and died in House Ways & Means Committee by 5:36 PM.
If voters approve CS/HJR 1F on the next general election ballot, it will be the most substantial restructuring of Florida's property tax system since Save Our Homes was originally adopted in 1992. Below: what passed, how each chamber voted, which amendments failed, and what comes next.
What CS/HJR 1F Actually Does
The amendment changes four parts of the Florida Constitution. Each card below is one of those changes.
Save Our Homes assessment framework
Reaffirms the homestead assessment cap at the lesser of 3% or CPI, and resets all homestead property to just value as of January 1 of the year following the effective date — every existing homestead gets reassessed at the new framework.
Homestead exemption: 5× by 2028
Phases up the non-school homestead exemption from $50,000 today → $150,000 on Jan 1, 2027 → $250,000 on Jan 1, 2028. School district levies stay at the $25,000 exemption. New residents (post-Dec 31, 2026) start at $50,000 and step up to $250,000 over five years.
Seven enumerated ad valorem uses
Counties and municipalities can use ad valorem revenue only for: public safety, education, infrastructure (roads/bridges/stormwater), natural-resource projects, local bonds for those purposes, retirement benefits for local employees, and core county/municipal operations. Anything not on the list — libraries, parks, social services, arts, public health, transit — must find non-ad-valorem funding.
Transition + effective date
Creates a new section establishing the phase-in schedule (2027 → 2028) and the constitutional framework for re-assessing existing homestead property under the new amendment.
Implementing legislation
Revises maximum millage rate limitations, updates the statutory definitions of "maximum total county ad valorem taxes levied" and "maximum total municipal ad valorem taxes levied" to conform, and explicitly authorizes the ballot summary of this amendment to exceed Florida's standard word limit — a signal that the legislature expects the substance to need more explanation than typical.
The Vote Breakdown
Every vote on this page is sourced directly from the LobbyScape bill record. Each card summarizes one vote; expand the roll-call to see who voted which way.
CS/HJR 1F — Constitutional amendment
June 2, 4:57 PM. All 30 Republicans, plus Sens. Pizzo and Rouson (D). Cleared the 60% threshold by 6 votes.
CS/HJR 1F — Constitutional amendment
June 2, 4:29 PM. 74 Republicans plus Rep. Joseph (D) voted YES. Two Republicans voted NO — Reps. Boyles and Maney — joining 24 Democrats. Cleared the 60% threshold by 3 votes.
CS/HJR 1F — committee referral
June 1, 3:00 PM, Room 110 Senate Office Building. Reported favorably as Committee Substitute.
CS/HJR 1F — committee referral
June 1. Party-line at committee — all 20 Republicans YES, all 7 Democrats NO.
Property Tax Administration
Implementing legislation operationalizing the constitutional changes. Senate Appropriations: 13–5 favorable.
Property Tax Administration
House passed after substituting for CS/HB 3F. Earlier Reading 2 quorum was a procedural 99–0 unrelated to the substantive vote.
See the full roll calls (every member, both chambers)
Senate CS/HJR 1F YES (30): Avila, Bernard, Boyd, Bradley, Brodeur, Burgess, Burton, Calatayud, DiCeglie, Gaetz, Garcia, Grall, Harrell, Hooper, Leek, Martin, Massullo, Mayfield, McClain, Passidomo, Pizzo, President Albritton, Rodriguez, Rouson, Sharief, Simon, Truenow, Trumbull, Wright, Yarborough
Senate CS/HJR 1F NO (9): Arrington, Berman, Bracy Davis, Davis, Jones, Nathan, Osgood, Polsky, Smith
House CS/HJR 1F YES (75): Abbott, Albert, Alvarez (D.), Andrade, Baker, Bankson, Barnaby, Basabe, Benarroch, Berfield, Black, Blanco, Booth, Borrero, Botana, Brackett, Brannan, Buchanan, Busatta, Canady, Cassel, Chamberlin, Chaney, Cobb, Conerly, Duggan, Esposito, Fabricio, Garrison, Gentry, Gerwig, Gonzalez Pittman, Gossett-Seidman, Greco, Griffitts, Grow, Hodgers, Holcomb, Holley, Jacques, Johnson, Joseph, Kendall, Koster, LaMarca, Maggard, McClure, McFarland, Melo, Michael, Miller, Mooney, Nix, Oliver, Overdorf, Owen, Partington, Perez, Plakon, Plasencia, Porras, Redondo, Rizo, Salzman, Scott, Shoaf, Sirois, Smith, Snyder, Steele, Tramont, Tuck, Valdés, Weinberger, Yarkosky
House CS/HJR 1F NO (26): Alvarez (J.), Antone, Bartleman, Boyles, Campbell, Chambliss, Cross, Daley, Driskell, Dunkley, Eskamani, Gantt, Gregory, Harris, Hunschofsky, López (J.), Maney, Nixon, Rayner, Robinson (F.), Skidmore, Spencer, Tant, Tendrich, Woodson, Young
Senate Appropriations YES (13): Brodeur, Burgess, DiCeglie, Garcia, Grall, Harrell, Hooper, Martin, Massullo, McClain, Rouson, Trumbull, Wright
Senate Appropriations NO (5): Berman, Pizzo, Polsky, Sharief, Smith
House State Affairs YES (20): Basabe, Blanco, Botana, Boyles, Busatta, Chaney, Cobb, Duggan, Gentry, Gonzalez Pittman, Griffitts, Holcomb, Jacques, Koster, Maggard, McFarland, Mooney, Owen, Sirois, Weinberger
House State Affairs NO (7): Cross, Eskamani, Gantt, Nixon, Spencer, Tendrich, Young
The Failed Amendments
House debate produced nine floor amendments across CS/HJR 1F and CS/HB 3F. One was withdrawn before vote; eight failed. The amendment-by-amendment substantive text resides in the official House journal — and the through-line across all of them comes into focus when you compare them to (a) the Democratic alternative HJR 11F's structural provisions, and (b) the underlying CS/HJR 1F text. Both are sourced from the LobbyScape platform's full-text index.
What the amendments were almost certainly trying to do
The CS/HJR 1F enrolled text makes two structural changes that are the obvious targets for amendment:
- Section 6 — Homestead exemption growth. Phases in a five-fold increase: $50,000 today → $150,000 effective January 1, 2027 → $250,000 effective January 1, 2028 (for non-school levies). Schools stay at the $25,000 exemption. New residents step in at $50,000 and grow to $250,000 after five years.
- Section 9 — Ad valorem use restriction. Counties and municipalities may now use ad valorem revenue only for seven enumerated purposes: public safety, education, infrastructure, natural-resource projects, local bonds, retirement benefits for local employees, and core operations. Things not on that list — libraries, parks, social services, arts and cultural institutions, public health programs, housing assistance, transit operations — would have to find non-ad-valorem funding.
The Democratic alternative HJR 11F's central feature was a constitutional trust-fund backfill to replace lost revenue, plus a constitutional public-safety funding floor. Most of the failed amendments to CS/HJR 1F appear to have targeted one of three goals based on this surrounding context: (1) inserting a backfill mechanism, (2) widening Section 9's allowed-use list, or (3) softening the homestead phase-in. The official amendment text by number is in the House journal and is being indexed into LobbyScape's full-text search; the cards below give what we know about each from the LobbyScape action timeline.
Likely interest-group alignment
- Groups that likely opposed CS/HJR 1F and supported the failed amendments: Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, Florida Education Association, Florida Library Association, Florida Recreation and Park Association, AFSCME Florida and public-employee unions, Florida Public Health Association, Florida property appraisers' associations (operational concerns), and county-level cultural and arts coalitions.
- Groups that likely supported CS/HJR 1F and opposed the amendments: Florida Realtors, Florida Home Builders Association, AARP Florida (homestead protection angle for elder homeowners), Florida TaxWatch (deficit-hawk framing), Americans for Prosperity Florida, James Madison Institute, and broad homeowner-advocacy coalitions. The Governor's office publicly supported the underlying measure throughout 2026.
- Cross-pressured / mixed: Florida Chamber of Commerce (commercial property owners benefit from the cap-on-local-use, but Chamber-member service industries are affected by reduced local services), the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Police Chiefs Association (Section 9 explicitly protects public safety funding — a structural win — but cuts elsewhere may pressure overall county budgets), and the Florida Association of School Superintendents (the FEFP-RLE mechanics are unresolved by the amendment itself).
Group positions above reflect the natural alignment based on the bill's substance and each organization's standing policy positions; LobbyScape does not yet have signed-witness data from the special-session hearings to confirm individual lobbyist positions for the record.
Amendment-by-amendment record from LobbyScape
Click any card to expand for detail on filing/vote sequence, the likely filer, the apparent goal, and a link to the official House record.
On CS/HJR 1F (the constitutional amendment)
Amendment 969759
First failed amendment
Filed at 2:44 AM, voted at 14:54.
Amendment 516895
Second failed amendment
Filed at 2:47 AM, voted at 15:21.
Amendment 976107
Third failed amendment
Filed at 11:36 AM, voted at 15:06.
Amendment 060165
Fourth failed amendment
Filed at 10:41 AM, voted at 15:37.
Amendment 679555
Fifth failed amendment
Filed at 10:51 AM, voted at 15:48.
Amendment 636249
Withdrawn before vote
Filed at 11:03 AM, withdrawn at 1:03 PM. Never came to a floor vote.
On CS/HB 3F (the implementing statute)
Amendment 865065
Failed at 16:45
Filed during second reading of CS/HB 3F.
Amendment 966147
Failed at 16:52
Filed during second reading of CS/HB 3F.
Amendment 400063
Failed at 17:02
Final amendment voted before CS/HB 3F passage.
Expanded analyses are LobbyScape's read of the amendments' likely substantive goals based on the public action timeline, the underlying CS/HJR 1F text, the Democratic alternative HJR 11F's provisions, and the vote patterns. The official amendment text is in the Florida House journal at the link on each card.
The amendments were filed predominantly by Democratic members; their consistent ~25-vote YES count tracks closely with the size of the Democratic caucus in the House. Each is a public record indexed in the LobbyScape platform alongside the parent bill so a lobbyist can see the full pattern of what was attempted.
The Democratic Alternative — HJR 11F
HJR 11F was filed by Rep. Hunschofsky at 12:07 PM on June 2 and died in House Ways & Means Committee at 5:36 PM the same day — 5 hours and 29 minutes from filing to procedural kill. Title: "Homestead Exemption and Public Safety Funding." Below: the four provisions HJR 11F proposed that CS/HJR 1F does not include.
Homestead exemption revision
Would have revised the homestead exemption — broadly parallel to CS/HJR 1F's approach on this provision.
Cap on inflation adjustment
Would have limited the annual inflation adjustment applied to the homestead exemption itself.
Public safety funding floor
Constitutional requirement that funding for public safety remain at current levels — a structural protection CS/HJR 1F does not include.
Trust-fund revenue backfill
Constitutional requirement for a trust fund to provide supplemental funding to replace lost ad valorem revenues — the central structural difference from CS/HJR 1F, which contains no constitutional backfill mechanism.
Co-sponsors of HJR 11F (15 House Democrats filing alongside Hunschofsky): Alvarez (J.), Bartleman, Campbell, Cross, Eskamani, Gregory, Harris, Joseph, López (J.), Nixon, Spencer, Tant, Tendrich, Woodson, and Young. Each of these names except Joseph appears in the NO column on the final House passage of CS/HJR 1F.
The Procedural Timeline
- May 28: Sen. Avila files CS/SJR 2F and CS/SB 4F.
- May 29: Senate Appropriations Committee schedules both for the June 1 hearing.
- June 1, 3:00 PM: Senate Appropriations hearing; Committee Substitute reported favorably 13–5.
- June 1: House State Affairs Committee passes CS/HJR 1F (and CS/HB 3F) 20–7.
- June 2, 12:07 PM: Rep. Hunschofsky files HJR 11F (Democratic alternative).
- June 2, 2:44 AM – 11:36 AM: Seven House amendments filed on CS/HJR 1F.
- June 2, 2:05 PM – 3:48 PM: House Reads CS/HJR 1F second time; five amendments fail, one withdrawn.
- June 2, 3:49 PM: House Reads CS/HJR 1F third time.
- June 2, 4:29 PM: House passes CS/HJR 1F 75–26.
- June 2, 4:31 PM: Message sent to Senate.
- June 2, 4:35 PM: Senate withdraws CS/HJR 1F from Appropriations.
- June 2, 4:41 PM: Senate substitutes CS/HJR 1F for CS/SJR 2F, reads twice.
- June 2, 4:42 PM: Senate Reads third time.
- June 2, 4:57 PM: Senate passes CS/HJR 1F 30–9.
- June 2, 5:17 PM: House orders CS/HJR 1F enrolled.
- June 2, 5:36 PM: HJR 11F dies in House Ways & Means Committee.
The entire substantive legislative process — from committee hearing to enrolled constitutional amendment — took approximately 26 hours.
The Revenue Replacement Question
CS/HJR 1F is structurally a property tax limit, not a property tax elimination. The amendment narrows the Save Our Homes assessment cap, expands the homestead exemption, and limits ad valorem use by counties and municipalities — three changes that, in combination, will reduce the property tax revenue base on which Florida's local governments and school districts currently operate.
CS/HJR 1F does not include a constitutional revenue backfill mechanism. The Democratic alternative HJR 11F did include one, in the form of a trust fund to replace lost revenues. With HJR 11F dead, the backfill question shifts to either local-government action (alternative revenue sources) or future state-level statutory or constitutional action to address the gap — particularly for the K-12 Required Local Effort, which provides the structural backbone of Florida's constitutional school-funding obligation under Article IX.
What Comes Next
The most immediate question is the ballot. CS/HJR 1F was enrolled and will be transmitted to the Secretary of State to appear on the next general election ballot. Florida constitutional amendments require 60% voter approval for ratification. The Department of State is expected to issue the official ballot summary; CS/SB 4F authorizes that summary to exceed the standard word limit, signaling that the legislature expects the substance to require more explanation than typical.
What lobbyists should watch in 2026 and 2027
The ratification campaign
Likely supporters: homeowner groups, real estate associations, homebuilder organizations. Likely opponents: Florida Education Association, Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and public-employee unions.
FEFP and RLE adjustments
If ratified, the legislature will almost certainly need to address how K-12 school funding adapts. Watch the House and Senate Pre-K-12 Education Appropriations Subcommittees.
Local-option ballot questions
County commissions across the state are already discussing local-option referendums to establish or expand alternative revenue (sales surtaxes, tourist development taxes, special assessments) for the November cycle.
Sales tax conversation
The structural budget hole that ad valorem reduction creates puts pressure on state-level revenue alternatives. Expect joint resolutions in 2027 examining sales tax structure.
Technical adjustments to CS/SB 4F
Implementing statutes typically need cleanup in the next regular session. Watch for substantive technical amendments in 2027.
Property appraiser guidance
County property appraisers will need to issue guidance on how the new assessment limitations apply at the parcel level. Watch the Florida Property Appraisers' Association for collective positions.
How LobbyScape Tracked This
Every action, every vote, every amendment, every committee hearing, every substitution between chambers, and every procedural step in Special Session 2026F is in the LobbyScape database — and was indexed within minutes of each official action. The data sourced above (bill numbers, sponsors, vote-by-vote breakdowns, action timestamps, amendment numbers and outcomes) came directly from the platform.
If you represent a Florida county, a municipality, a school district, a real estate group, a homebuilder, a chamber of commerce, a public-employee union, a property appraiser, or any other entity touched by this amendment, the next 18 months are going to require continuous tracking — committee discussions, fiscal analyses, conference dynamics, and the November ballot campaign itself. Schedule a 30-minute demo and we'll pull up the actual bill timeline, the votes, and the amendment history on your screen.