ELECTION 2026: Judge finds school sales tax ballot defective

Posted on November 3, 2026

Voting on the school district’s proposed half-cent sales tax ended Tuesday, Nov. 3, but it was unclear when voters would learn the outcome after a judge’s signed order, filed that afternoon, found the ballot language likely violates state law and barred election officials from reporting or certifying the results.

Circuit Judge Fred Koberlein Jr. granted in part and denied in part an emergency request from Dan Simmons, Don Curtis and Taylor County Citizens for Responsible Government, a political committee Simmons chairs. He announced his ruling following a hearing by Zoom on Oct. 30, and his 13-page written order was filed at 1:09 p.m. Election Day.

In the order, Koberlein found the 90-word ballot summary “does not conform” to the state’s 75-word limit, calling that limit “mandatory” and writing that “strict compliance is required.” “The word count is apparent from the face of the ballot,” he wrote.

He also found the ballot title was never adopted in a resolution or ordinance, as state law requires.

And he found the title’s description of the tax as being for “School Operational Purposes” conflicts with state law, which limits the tax to capital outlay and bars spending it on operating expenses.

“A measure that announces one purpose yet may only lawfully serve another flies under false colors,” Koberlein wrote, quoting a 2000 Florida Supreme Court ruling. He called the title’s reference to operational purposes “clearly and conclusively defective.”

Koberlein wrote that the county’s placement of a ballot question “that facially violates the express requirements” of state law “constitutes an ongoing violation of Florida law that threatens immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and the electorate.”

The judge found the plaintiffs had shown “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” He wrote that “monetary damages cannot correct or compensate for the ballot language presented to the electorate,” and that the harm from certifying the measure could not be “undone after the fact.”

“The public has an interest in elections conducted in accordance with the Legislature’s statutory requirements,” Koberlein wrote. “Here, granting the injunction serves the public interest by invalidating a measure that was unlawfully placed on the ballot.”

The order allows Supervisor of Elections Dana Southerland and the Taylor County Canvassing Board to count the votes, but requires them to preserve all ballots, vote counts, election records and data related to the referendum.

Until a final ruling, the county, the school board, Southerland and the canvassing board are barred “from reporting or certifying the results of the one-half cent sales surtax referendum.” The order does not affect any other race or measure on the ballot, including the school district’s 0.25-mill property tax renewal.

The injunction remains in effect until the case is decided. Koberlein said he will set a final hearing on an expedited basis, acknowledging at the hearing that the upcoming holidays will make that “difficult to schedule.” The plaintiffs must post a $100 bond within five days.

The order does not address a motion filed Oct. 27 by the county, Southerland and the canvassing board asking that the lawsuit be dismissed.

Results on hold

Contacted on Election Day before the order was filed, Southerland said the referendum totals would not be released Tuesday night with other election results unless she received the judge’s order authorizing her to do so.

Based on the judge’s Oct. 30 ruling, she said, she was required to “disable” the automatic tallying of that measure to keep it out of the official count and certification process.

At the hearing, asked how his ruling affects public records, Koberlein said the supervisor should comply with Florida’s public records law. School board and plaintiffs’ attorneys agreed the vote-total tapes printed by each tabulator are public records.

Perry Newspapers submitted a public records request under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, for the referendum vote totals. It was not known at press time whether the written order’s bar on “reporting” the results would delay their release.

According to facts both sides agreed to and the judge adopted, 2,413 ballots had been cast in Taylor County as of noon Oct. 29.

Simmons: ‘Pretty much as expected’

In a statement to the Taco Times on Monday, Nov. 2, the day before the written order was filed, Simmons said, “The judge’s ruling is pretty much as expected. My understanding is the judge found government agencies can not use defective and misleading ballot language to raise taxes.”

Simmons said the ruling “theoretically can be ‘appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.’”

“Taylor County Citizens for Responsible Government hopes local agencies will not waste more tax dollars to hire more lawyers,” he said. “It is hard to imagine this judge, or any judge, ruling at any time in the future that defective and misleading ballots can be used in a Florida election. We do not anticipate that happening.”

“If there is an appetite for higher taxes in the future, the measure can be reintroduced and voted up or down on a legal ballot,” he said.

The lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 15, claims the 90-word ballot summary exceeds the state’s 75-word limit and that the title, “Referendum Regarding the Authority of the School Board to Levy for School Operational Purposes,” wrongly describes a tax that by law can be used only for capital outlay – long-lasting projects such as building, renovating and repairing schools – not day-to-day operating costs.

If approved and upheld, the 10-year tax would run from Jan. 1, 2027, through Dec. 31, 2036, raising the local sales tax from 7% to 7.5%. It is the last referendum on the ballot.

Supervisor: Title came from her office

Southerland, supervisor of elections since 2009, testified the county’s April 21 ordinance placing the tax on the ballot did not include a title or a Spanish translation, both of which the ballot requires.

“My office placed a title on it and translated the entire, both the title and the text of the referendum, and sent both the English version and the Spanish version to the school for approval,” she said. The district office sent back an approval email, she said.

Southerland said she “simply used the same title from the other referendum,” the 0.25-mill school property tax renewal that appears just above the sales tax on the ballot. She said she was not aware of any resolution or ordinance formally adopting the title and agreed it was not in the county’s ordinance.

She said she never counted the words in the summary but “would not disagree” that it is 90. Her office’s role, she said, is to make sure a measure has a title, text and a place to vote yes or no, not to approve or deny the wording.

Questioned by school board attorney Alexander Lenk, Southerland said her office cannot stop tabulating votes already cast. It can disable a contest so results do not appear in election-night reporting or files sent to the state, but a disabled contest cannot be turned back on. Reversing course would require reprogramming and retesting equipment and retabulating the ballots, “almost like a recount,” she said.

The first unofficial results are due Nov. 7, the second unofficial results Nov. 12 and the official results Nov. 16 at noon.

Simmons, Curtis testify

Simmons testified the first time he saw the ballot title was on the sample ballot posted in mid-September.

“The stated purpose was for capital outlay, and when I saw the title say that the levy was for operational purposes, it seemed like there was conflict there,” he said.

He said he first sought advice from a Lake City attorney, who referred him to election-law specialists. At the Oct. 6 school board meeting, he said, he read the title from his ballot and asked, “Is that accurate?” The question was passed from the board chairman to the superintendent to the board attorney, who replied, “We’re looking into that,” he said.

Under cross-examination, Simmons said the political committee was formed Oct. 14, the day before the lawsuit was filed, and that Curtis is the only other member.

Asked by school board attorney Kevin Forsthoefel whether a reasonable voter could see building and maintaining schools as part of a school board’s “operational purposes,” Simmons said, “I don’t believe that operational purposes are the same as capital outlay.”

County attorney Conrad Bishop questioned Simmons about his role as vice chairman of the Taylor County Development Authority and whether opposing the tax was inconsistent with recruiting industry. Simmons said he was speaking only for himself and that the TCDA has not taken a position. “Some companies that are coming to Taylor County, maybe their first thing is, ‘How’s your tax structure? We want low taxes,’” he said.

Simmons acknowledged he has opposed the tax from the start. “Our community is hurting right now,” he said, citing three hurricanes, three major plant closings, more than 1,000 lost jobs and the state’s highest unemployment rate.

He also said the district is “B-rated” and “can be made better.” Asked whether the tax could help, he said, “If the money were spent correctly, possibly.”

“Is it operational or is it capital outlay? I’m confused,” Simmons said. “I think the board is confused, and I think probably other voters are confused.”

Curtis testified he first saw the title on his absentee ballot in early October. “Operational versus fixed capital are very distinct,” he said. “Even the legislature treats them separately.”

Plaintiffs: ‘Dead on arrival’

Plaintiffs’ attorney Leonard Collins argued the measure is invalid on its face because state law caps ballot summaries at 75 words and requires the title to be part of the enabling ordinance.

“You cannot have a 90-word ballot summary,” Collins said. “You have a ballot title that was never adopted by any board, by anyone.”

He noted the school board’s February resolution proposed a 72-word question, and the final version of an ordinance authorizing the sales tax question to be put on the ballot included an additional 21 words. “I don’t know why, but for the purposes of this proceeding, it doesn’t matter,” he said.

Collins said the plaintiffs did not want to interfere with the count, but asked that the referendum not be reported or certified like valid measures. He also argued his clients could not have waited too long, because they did not know about the problems until the sample ballot was posted.

District: Too late, ‘technical violation’

Forsthoefel said the plaintiffs were seeking “extraordinary relief” by asking the court to strike a referendum “four days before an election” while residents were already voting.

He argued the plaintiffs waited six months after the county’s April 21 ordinance, when the length and lack of a title were already public, and 30 days after the sample ballot was posted.

He said the 21 words explaining that money must be shared with charter schools are a separate disclosure required by law, leaving a 69-word summary. Even if the summary is too long, he called that a “technical violation” that does not mislead voters.

“Operational purpose is much broader,” he said, and voters “will certainly understand that within the school board’s operational purpose is the construction improvement of school facilities.” He noted the 0.25-mill measure with the same title says it pays for teachers and programs, which he said “reinforces the distinction.”

Forsthoefel said the school board must report the result to the Florida Department of Revenue by Nov. 16 for the tax to take effect Jan. 1, 2027. If an injunction blocks that and the board later wins, he said, “There’s no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

He asked that any injunction be limited to implementation and that the vote be allowed to be certified.

In its written response filed Oct. 27, the school board said Simmons spoke against the tax at the school board’s Feb. 24 meeting and the County Commission’s April 21 meeting, citing sworn statements from Wentworth and County Administrator LaWanda Pemberton.

The facts adopted in the judge’s order show Simmons also spoke at the March 17 commission meeting and the Aug. 4 school board meeting, and Curtis spoke at the March 17 meeting. The ballot title was not read at the February school board meeting or either commission meeting, according to the order.

The school board attorney also argued the title’s “operational purposes” describes the goal of the tax – supporting the operation of Taylor County’s schools – not the kind of spending state law forbids. Its February resolution states the money “shall not be used for operating expenses, employee salaries or benefits.”

The school board’s filing called the plaintiffs’ original request to keep the results from being publicly released “fundamentally un-American” and contrary to Florida’s public records law. “Nothing would erode public trust in the integrity of Taylor County’s local elections [more] than an order telling its citizens that their votes were counted but the results cannot be known,” the filing states.

Bishop, representing the county, Southerland and the canvassing board, argued voters who opposed the measure could still challenge it after the election. “They’re early with that, but they’re late with their lawsuit,” he said.

School board members Jeannie Mathis, Brenda Carlton and Bonnie Sue Agner, Wentworth and board attorney Angela Ball attended the hearing, but did not speak.

Subscribe to our e-Edition and read the rest of the story. Already a subscriber? Click here to sign in.