“The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” he said. His ruling aligned with the plaintiffs who argued the ballot language is misleading. Frank’s ruling also takes issue with the ballot summary. The amendment language would likely decrease local governments’ revenue to would fund core services like police and fire, he wrote. In 2027, if voters approve the amendment, the exemption will be raised to $150,000, which the ballot summary doesn’t mention.