JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The ramp was steeper than she expected, but Rachel Dues was not going to stop. Not mere steps away from what she believed to be the most important thing she would do this year.
Dues, 54, gathered herself then pushed hard, propelling the wheelchair that carried her injured niece to the polls.
"You're gonna get in there. I don't care how," Dues said, her voice breathless with effort. She was speaking as much to herself as she was to her niece, 21-year-old Rochelle Covington, who asked to come along to vote.
"By any means necessary," Dues said, giving the wheelchair another shove.
For Dues, this year's midterm election feels existential. Gas prices have soared, her rent is up, and some days it feels like simply buying groceries or paying her electricity bill could push her over budget.
While political candidates all over the country have paid lip service to issues of affordability, here in Florida, the question of how to make life more affordable is literally on the ballot.
A massive property tax cut has been put to voters in the form of Amendment 3, a ballot measure that asks Florida residents to vote on increasing the amount of money that can be exempted from homestead taxes. The proposal would increase the allowable amount from $50,000 to as much as $250,000 over the next two years, cutting billions of dollars in revenue from local governments' budgets. If the measure passes, some jurisdictions could functionally eliminate all non-school homestead property taxes over time.
That could mean thousands of dollars in annual savings for some homeowners — something supporters have called a game-changer for Florida residents stretched thin by a strained economy. But in an already tax-averse state — Florida famously does not have individual income or estate taxes, among others — local governments have limited revenue streams from which to pull funds for public services, and property taxes have been a lifeline.
Critics have cautioned that the proposed tax exemption will have dire consequences: cuts to public services and infrastructure, eroded social safety net programs and a domino effect that could drive up costs elsewhere should city and county governments attempt to recoup lost revenue.
"One of the things our members are always knocking on doors and asking is: affordability? For who?" said Steven Johnson, an organizer with grassroots nonprofit Florida Rising, which organizes residents to get involved in political action on state and local issues.
Florida isn't the only place where politicians have explored ways to cut, or even eliminate, property taxes — 11 states have reined in property taxes so far in 2026, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But Florida's proposal, which is more expansive than many others, puts the question directly to voters.
How they vote, experts said, could set the stage for what's to come in Florida and around the nation.
A disabled veteran, Dues works as a notary and closing agent on home sales. For her, she said, the Amendment 3 vote is personal.
"Lucky for me I'm a resourceful person, but I rely on things like food pantries and other services to get by," Dues said. "Now I'm wondering, what am I going to do if they get rid of all that? What can I do?"
The impact
Since it was introduced, Florida's proposed Amendment 3 has been pitched to voters as an affordability fix for homeowners.
While the state already has laws limiting how much can be taxed of a home's assessed value — and how much that amount can grow each year — this amendment would, in some cases, virtually eliminate all property taxes due on a homeowner's primary residence.
Backers like Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, and the Florida Realtors trade association have said property taxes have grown out of control and local governments are flush with excess revenue as a result.
"Homeowners have funded the incredible increase in revenue that is now at record growth, and as property values have increased that growth has translated into significant revenue gains for local governments," said Margy Grant, the CEO of Florida Realtors, which as of the end of October put $19.5 million into the 'Vote Yes on 3' campaign. "This is about making sure that Floridians who want to stay in their homes and are seeing this rising cost get to stay in their homes."
In the campaign to persuade Floridians to vote yes, ads highlight just how expensive daily life has gotten.
"Everything keeps going up!" the Vote Yes on 3 website exclaims. "Cost of living. Inflation. PROPERTY TAXES. What if there was a SOLUTION that could help?"
"Florida families are paying more for nearly everything, whether it's groceries, fuel, insurance, utilities and housing," Grant said. "This is tax relief money that stays in a Floridian's pocket instead of going to the government."
Property tax revenue collected by local governments in the state has nearly doubled from around $32 billion in 2019 to almost $60 billion in the last fiscal year, according to the governor's office. Much of that growth, experts said, was driven by a post-pandemic real estate boom with out-of-state residents moving in and low interest rates driving new property sales.
The question of how law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services will be affected by these potential tax cuts have fueled headline-grabbing debates across the state. Some public officials have insisted emergency services will be able to weather any cuts, while others, including the Florida Sheriffs Association, warned they would suffer.
Amendment 3 proponents said these warnings have been overblown.
"That is just a talking point of the opposition," Grant said.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who supports the measure, wrote in a post on X that "every county has waste to cut," and argued that the amendment would force local governments to eliminate waste rather than essential services.
But local leaders said services other than police, fire and EMS are likely to be hit even harder: Funds for libraries, public transportation, infrastructure, homelessness prevention, small business supports, after-school programs for kids and more could be eliminated.
The amendment was put to voters "very, very quickly and without understanding the unintended consequences," said Mike Weinstein, Jacksonville's chief administrative officer and a former state legislator. "There's a small segment of homeowners that will benefit from this. But the majority of people — renters, business owners, everyone else, and even many homeowners — won't see any benefit from this amendment at all." (The amendment would limit which homeowners qualify for the increased exemption based on when they purchased their home.)
According to an analysis by the state's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, the amendment would cut local revenue in the state by nearly $12 billion on a recurring basis. In Jacksonville, the Florida Policy Institute found, that could mean losing as much as $372 million over the next five years.
"Our budget here is $2 billion. A billion comes from property taxes," Weinstein said. "So, mosquito control, road surfacing, libraries, parks, all will be affected. And so will police and fire."
Weinstein, a Republican, said in lieu of funding things like parks and libraries, fixing roads or clearing trash, the city may instead have to channel resources toward opening a "very big" complaints department.
Getting out the vote
Maggie Fernandez, 68, is exactly the kind of person who might benefit from Amendment 3. She owns her own home. Her husband is retired.
But in recent weeks, Fernandez has spent her nights and weekends in the lead up to Election Day phone banking and knocking on doors to get her neighbors to vote the amendment down.
"Sure, I might see some relief in taxes," Fernandez said. "But overall this is going to hurt local services. It's going to hurt people who are worse off than we are."
Fernandez signed up to do voter outreach with Florida Rising. On a recent weekday evening, she was one of more than a dozen volunteers who packed into the progressive nonprofit's office and hit the phones. All told, organizers said, they made nearly 1,500 calls that night.
With early voting already underway in Florida, Fernandez said she felt a renewed sense of urgency to get the "vote no" message out.
She dialed number after number — 111 in one night — leaving messages and urging those who answered to consider how Amendment 3 might hurt their neighbors in the long run.
Down the hall, Dues was also making calls.
When a woman answered halfway through the evening, Dues scrambled for her script.
"Amendment 3 may lead to cuts on local services like flood prevention, road maintenance, public transportation and housing assistance and that's what it doesn't tell you when you see those commercials on TV," Dues said. "It doesn't tell you any of that, it just makes you think it's this great amendment."
The woman on the other line said she'd be voting no.
Dues exhaled as she hung up the phone.
'People don't know'
Dues doesn't need to work hard to picture how the amendment might affect her daily life. She thinks about it constantly: On her drives across town as she calculates the amount of gas it might take to get home; on her regular visits to food pantries, where she gathers enough bread and eggs and frozen meat to make it through the month.
Will the food banks be able to operate if they lose city funding, she wonders. Will relief programs that help renters like her pay for utility bills or avoid eviction disappear?
In her work as a closing agent, Dues sees how much people are paying to become homeowners in Florida, and, she said, she feels for anyone who is struggling to make ends meet.
But she's done her research and practiced her pitch. Whenever she gets the chance, she tells homeowners that the affordability Amendment 3 promises isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"When I first heard about it, I was like, oh that's great. That'll really help people," Dues said. "But then I learned more about it and it felt like a bait and switch. It might be great for some people, in the short term, but in the long run, it's going to do a lot of harm."
If local lawmakers shift the financial burden into other taxes homeowners could end up paying more in other places, she tells friends and colleagues.
Renters like her, she says, may absorb increases put to landlords or commercial properties. And any programs that exist to help people survive won't necessarily be there to help anymore.
The amendment needs the approval of a supermajority — 60% or more — to pass.
On a recent morning outside a church on the west side of Jacksonville, Dues got in line to register for the food bank. She needed a few staples, she said, to carry her through the end of the month.
"Are you voting?" she asked the woman working the sign-in desk.
The volunteer squinted up at her.
"You know to vote 'no' on Amendment 3, right?" Dues pitched, taking a number.
Dues said she's never been more nervous before an election.
"It's kind of scary to me that people don't know" about the amendment, she said.
Looking around the crowd gathered for boxes of bread and other pantry items, Dues shook her head.
"How do they expect poor people to be able to live as regular people?" she wondered aloud.
The number in her hand read 104. All around her, the crowd was still growing.
Copyright 2026 NPR
