Judge orders city to revise ballot language for proposed tax on vacant homes before June election

Court intervenes in how voters will see the vacancy-tax measure

A judge has ordered a city to change portions of the ballot language for a measure that would impose a tax on homes left vacant for extended periods, a ruling that forces election officials to revise how the proposal is summarized for voters before ballots are finalized.

The dispute centers on whether the short, official description presented on the ballot accurately and neutrally captures what the measure would do. Challenges of this type typically focus on the title and summary, the question text, and any official analysis prepared for voters—materials that can be decisive because many voters encounter the proposal first through that condensed wording.

What the measure would do

The measure at issue would create an “empty homes” tax that applies when a residential property is vacant for more than roughly half the year. The proposal exempts owner-occupied primary residences and does not apply to properties used as long-term rentals, reflecting an intent to target homes that are held off the market rather than occupied as a main home.

Under the draft language prepared for the election, the tax would start at $8,000 for qualifying properties in the first year and rise to $10,000 in later years, with annual inflation adjustments. Higher rates would apply to corporate-owned properties. Revenue is described as supporting city services, with annual independent audits and the provision that the tax remains in effect unless ended by voters.

• Applies to residential properties vacant more than about 182 days per year
• Excludes primary residences and long-term rentals
• Sets annual tax rates with inflation adjustments; higher rates for corporate ownership
• Directs revenue to city services and includes audit requirements

Why ballot language can end up in court

Ballot-wording litigation is often driven by competing claims that the phrasing either understates the measure’s reach or uses persuasive language that could tilt voter understanding. Courts generally evaluate whether the official language is accurate, impartial, and consistent with election law requirements for clarity. Even when a measure’s full text is lengthy and technical, the ballot’s condensed wording must still reflect the measure’s core legal effect.

In ordering revisions, the judge’s decision signals that at least part of the existing wording did not meet that standard. The practical outcome is a rewrite under a tight election calendar, with officials working to ensure the updated description remains consistent with the ordinance language approved for submission to voters.

Ballot language is intended to inform voters in neutral terms, not to argue the case for or against a measure.

What happens next

Following the ruling, the city must submit revised language so election administrators can incorporate the court-ordered changes into the materials voters will see. The measure itself remains scheduled for the upcoming election unless separately withdrawn or blocked on other legal grounds.

The case underscores a recurring tension in local tax elections: supporters want language that conveys the policy purpose—such as increasing housing availability—while opponents seek wording that highlights costs, administration, and potential legal vulnerabilities. The court’s order narrows that fight to the precise words that will appear on the ballot, aiming to ensure voters receive a description that is factual and legally durable.