Florida Amendment 1: Raise the cap on the state’s rainy-day fund
What it does. Florida’s Budget Stabilization Fund, created in 1992, is a state savings account for budget shortfalls and emergencies. Its balance cannot exceed 10% of the last year’s general revenue collections. Amendment 1 would raise that cap to 25% and require the Legislature to transfer each year the lesser of $750 million or the amount needed to reach the cap. The Legislature could suspend the transfer in some cases, including when it finds a critical state need and two-thirds of each house agree. Money could be withdrawn for emergencies, for revenue shortfalls, or for a critical state need if the balance is above 15% and two-thirds of the Legislature approves. Amendments in Florida need 60% of the vote to pass. [1] [2] [3]
Official ballot question. Budget Stabilization Fund. 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. [1] [2]
If you vote yes
A YES vote would approve the amendment and raise the fund’s cap from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, with the annual transfer and withdrawal rules above. It needs 60% to pass. [1] [2]
If you vote no
A NO vote would reject the amendment and leave the fund’s cap at 10% of general revenue collections. [1] [2]
What it would cost
The House’s nonpartisan staff analysis says “The fiscal impact on the state is indeterminate but likely insignificant.” The amendment requires an annual transfer into the fund of the lesser of $750 million or the amount needed to reach the cap, unless the Legislature suspends it under the conditions above. [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Senate President Ben Albritton says the amendment “makes Florida’s balance sheet more durable in difficult times, and we’re setting more money aside to have its rainy-day reserves if things get difficult.” [3]
House Speaker Daniel Perez says it is “a preparation of being prepared for the unexpected,” and points to the last big downturn: “[T]he state of Florida was not prepared for that recession.” [3]
The Republican Party of Florida says “Hurricanes, emergencies, and economic downturns don’t wait for the budget cycle. Amendment 1 makes sure Florida saves in good years so it doesn’t have to raise taxes in bad ones.” [3]
Strongest case against
Gov. Ron DeSantis calls it “a foolish constitutional amendment proposal,” saying “We already have a maxed out rainy day fund and have run the largest surpluses in state history. Any additional revenue should be used for lower taxes…” He recommends a no vote. [3]
Rich Templin of the Florida AFL-CIO says “We have so many needs and obligations that are still unmet. Why would we take money and put it in our retirement account?” [3]
The Sun Sentinel editorial board says that although the amendment “purports to place new guardrails” on using the fund, “we’re suspicious. If lawmakers want to find a way to break this cash-stuffed piggy bank, they’ll do it.” [3]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- Spending the money would still take a supermajority. Under the amendment, a withdrawal for a “critical state need” would need a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house in a separate bill for that purpose only, and could not take the balance below 10% of revenue collections, according to the House staff analysis. Withdrawals for an emergency or a general revenue shortfall would need only a regular bill. [2] [3]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Amendment 1. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised —
No committee registered.
Opposing (No)
Total raised —
No committee registered.
Reported contributions as of Nov. 1, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Florida Division of Elections, committee search.
Sources
- Proposed Constitutional Amendment Booklet, November 3, 2026 (ballot title, summary and full text of Amendment 3) — Florida Department of State, Division of Elections (Official state ballot booklet, 2026-09-03)
- Final Bill Analysis, HJR 5019 (Budget Stabilization Fund) — Florida House of Representatives (nonpartisan committee staff) (Official nonpartisan legislative staff analysis, 2025-08-15)
- Florida Amendment 1, Changes to Budget Stabilization Fund Amendment (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.