Florida Amendment 2: Exempt farm equipment from property tax
What it does. Local governments in Florida tax tangible personal property such as machinery, tools and equipment, and the first $25,000 of its value is already exempt. Amendment 2 would exempt tangible personal property that is regularly on land classified as agricultural, is used to produce agricultural products or for agritourism, and is owned by the landowner or leaseholder. The Legislature could set conditions and definitions in general law. If approved, it would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027. It needs 60% of the vote to pass. [1] [2] [3]
Official ballot question. Exemption of tangible personal property on agricultural land from taxation. Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to exempt tangible personal property habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land from ad valorem taxation. If approved this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027. [1] [2]
If you vote yes
A YES vote would approve the amendment and exempt qualifying agricultural tangible personal property from property taxes beginning with tax year 2027. It needs 60% to pass. [1] [2]
If you vote no
A NO vote would reject the amendment, and qualifying farm equipment would continue to be taxed under current law, including the existing $25,000 exemption. [1] [2]
What it would cost
The Revenue Estimating Conference estimates the amendment would have “a negative recurring impact on local government revenues of $31.0 million, beginning in Fiscal Year 2027-28,” and no impact if it fails. [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson says “Food security is a national security issue,” and that ending “burdensome multiple taxation of agricultural production” would help agriculture grow. [4]
Rep. Danny Alvarez, the sponsor, says “Florida agriculture is the backbone of our state’s culture and economy.” Sen. Keith Truenow calls it “a great opportunity to help farmers reach their goals and their needs.” [4] [3]
The Republican Party of Florida says “Amendment 2 gives financial relief to the farmers and agricultural businesses who feed our state and keep rural communities strong.” The Department of Agriculture said, when an earlier version was filed in 2024, that it would “ease increasing food costs to consumers by lowering the cost of production.” [3] [4]
Strongest case against
Rep. Anna Eskamani says “This bill would have a $30 million fiscal impact for local governments, with no guardrails to prevent windfalls.” [3]
She argues it would “mostly benefit a handful of giant agribusinesses with multiple TPP (tangible personal property) accounts,” and that “There could be a more targeted approach to support smaller business owners and farmers.” [3]
The Sun Sentinel editorial board says “it’s bad policy to enshrine special-interest tax breaks in the constitution,” and that lawmakers could help farmers with “funding from their own tax collections, instead of sticking local governments with the bill for their generosity.” It concedes the cost is “relatively small.” [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.
- The details are left to the Legislature. The House staff analysis says the exemption “is subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions that may be specified by the Legislature in general law.” The measure passed the House 110–1 and the Senate 37–0 in 2025, according to Ballotpedia. [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 2. 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, CS/HJR 1215 (Ad Valorem Tax Exemption) — Florida House of Representatives (nonpartisan committee staff) (Official nonpartisan legislative staff analysis, 2025-05-22)
- Florida Amendment 2, Exempt Tangible Personal Property Used for Agriculture or Agritourism from Property Taxes Amendment (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
- Constitutional Amendment Proposed to Support Florida Agriculture by Eliminating Multiple Taxation of Agricultural Production (press release, January 8, 2024) — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Government press release (sponsors’ statements), 2024-01-08)
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.