Fauci Contempt Vote, Florida Property-Tax Ballot Rewrite, and Major St. Petersburg Legal Developments

Fauci Contempt Vote, Florida Property-Tax Ballot Rewrite, and Major St. Petersburg Legal Developments

August 6, 2026 Legal Update

Several legal and governmental matters covered in our recent updates have now moved forward. A Senate committee has voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. A Florida judge has ordered the Attorney General to rewrite the ballot language for a proposed property-tax constitutional amendment. St. Petersburg is considering utility-rate increases and a $600 million general-obligation bond, while the City continues to evaluate its future relationship with Duke Energy and negotiate the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District.

There are also important updates concerning the nomination of Todd Blanche as United States Attorney General, proposed changes to veterans’ disability benefits, and the increasing risks associated with homeowners’ association and condominium assessments.

These developments may appear unrelated. Together, however, they illustrate why federal, state, and local government decisions matter. Congressional investigations can implicate constitutional rights. Ballot language can shape how voters understand amendments. City utility and borrowing decisions can affect monthly bills and property taxes. Association assessments can become liens and, in some circumstances, foreclosure proceedings.

Legal Update at a Glance

• A Senate committee voted on August 6 to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt after he repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during congressional questioning.
• The contempt vote is not a criminal conviction. Additional action by the Senate, the Department of Justice, or both would be required before any criminal prosecution.
• Today, August 6, is the deadline to request a vote-by-mail ballot for St. Petersburg’s August 18 municipal primary.
• A Leon County judge ordered Florida’s Attorney General to rewrite the ballot title and summary for a proposed property-tax amendment.
• St. Petersburg will consider proposed utility-rate increases at meetings on August 13 and August 27.
• Voters are expected to decide in November whether the City may issue up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.
• St. Petersburg’s franchise agreement with Duke Energy expired on August 1, but electrical service continues.
• The Burg redevelopment proposal remains subject to negotiation, a community-benefits process, and final City Council approval.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Todd Blanche’s nomination to serve as Attorney General, but the full Senate has not yet confirmed him.
• The House did not vote down the veterans’ disability legislation on final passage. Rather, House leadership withdrew the bill before a final vote after a separate procedural vote.
• Rising assessments and collection activity are increasing the risk that unpaid HOA and condominium obligations will become liens and foreclosure claims.

Senate Committee Votes to Hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in Contempt

On August 6, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted along party lines to approve a contempt resolution concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci. Contemporary reporting described the vote as 8–7.

The dispute arose from Dr. Fauci’s July 29 testimony before the committee. During the hearing, Dr. Fauci reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment more than one hundred times while being questioned about matters involving the government’s response to COVID-19, federally funded research, and his prior public statements.

We previously discussed the underlying constitutional questions in our article, “Fauci Invokes the Fifth After a Presidential Pardon: What Congress Can Compel—and What It Cannot.”

What the committee decided

Committee Chairman Rand Paul and other supporters of the contempt resolution argue that Dr. Fauci could not properly rely on the Fifth Amendment because former President Joe Biden issued him a federal pardon covering conduct during a specified period. They also argue that Dr. Fauci may have waived at least part of the privilege by making an opening statement before declining to answer questions.

Opponents, including the committee’s ranking Democratic members, argue that the proceeding was rushed and politically motivated. They further contend that a presidential pardon does not necessarily eliminate every reasonable possibility of prosecution, including possible state offenses, conduct outside the pardon’s effective period, or exposure arising from testimony given after the pardon.

A contempt vote is not a criminal conviction

The committee vote does not itself establish that Dr. Fauci committed a crime. It also does not result in an immediate fine or term of imprisonment.

A criminal contempt proceeding ordinarily requires additional action. The matter may be presented to the full Senate, referred to the Department of Justice, or become the subject of further litigation over the validity and scope of the subpoena and the asserted constitutional privilege. Chairman Paul has indicated that he may transmit the committee’s recommendation directly to the Department of Justice, although questions remain regarding whether full Senate authorization would be necessary or whether the Department would pursue the matter without it.

Even if prosecutors accepted a referral, they would still have to evaluate several difficult legal issues:

• Whether the pardon eliminated a reasonable fear of federal prosecution;
• Whether possible state-law exposure preserved the privilege;
• Whether the pardon covered every subject addressed by the committee;
• Whether post-pardon statements or conduct created separate exposure;
• Whether Dr. Fauci’s opening statement constituted a waiver;
• Whether the committee’s questions were sufficiently pertinent to its authorized investigation;
• Whether Congress could overcome the privilege by granting immunity; and
• Whether Dr. Fauci relied on advice of counsel in asserting the privilege.

The Fifth Amendment generally protects a witness from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence that could reasonably be used in a criminal prosecution. It is not limited to people who are guilty, and invocation of the privilege is not itself proof of wrongdoing.

The next major events will be any action by the full Senate, a formal referral to the Department of Justice, a prosecutorial response, or litigation concerning the subpoena and the asserted privilege.

St. Petersburg Election Deadlines: Why Local Elections Matter

Although national controversies often receive more attention, local elections can have a more immediate effect on everyday life. City officials make decisions involving utility rates, property taxes, development agreements, zoning, public safety, stormwater systems, franchise agreements, housing, transportation, and the use of public property.

For St. Petersburg voters:

• The deadline to request a vote-by-mail ballot is August 6 at 5:00 p.m.
• Early voting runs from August 8 through August 16.
• The municipal primary election is August 18.
• The general election is November 3.

Voters may obtain official election information, voting locations, sample ballots, and vote-by-mail instructions through the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections and the City of St. Petersburg’s election information page.

The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. encourages residents to understand the legal and practical consequences of the decisions local officials make.

The utility proposal, Duke Energy franchise, Historic Gas Plant District redevelopment, and general-obligation bond discussed below demonstrate why local elections deserve serious attention.

Judge Orders Rewrite of Florida Property-Tax Ballot Language

A Leon County circuit judge has ordered Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite portions of the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment concerning property taxes.

The proposal, commonly referred to as Amendment 3 or the “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” proposal, is expected to appear on Florida’s November ballot. The amendment would substantially increase the homestead exemption applicable to non-school property taxes and reduce the annual assessment-growth cap for certain non-homestead property.

Under the proposal:

• The non-school homestead exemption would increase to $150,000 in 2027;
• It would increase again to $250,000 in 2028; and
• The assessment cap for specified non-homestead property would generally decrease from 10% to 5%.

The official proposed language and legislative history are available through the Florida Senate’s bill page and the enrolled text of the proposal.

The court did not reject the underlying tax policy

The court’s ruling is important, but it should not be misunderstood.

The judge did not decide whether reducing property taxes is good or bad policy. Nor did the court automatically remove the amendment from the ballot. Instead, the court concluded that portions of the ballot title and summary were not sufficiently neutral and functioned more like political advocacy than an objective explanation of the amendment.

The Attorney General was directed to prepare revised language within a court-ordered ten-day period. The measure remains scheduled for the ballot, subject to the revision process and any additional litigation or appellate review.

We discussed the pending challenge in our July 30, 2026 St. Petersburg and Florida Legal Update.

Why ballot summaries receive close judicial scrutiny

Most voters do not read every page of a proposed constitutional amendment before entering the voting booth. Many rely heavily on the ballot title and summary.

Florida law therefore requires ballot language to fairly advise voters of the amendment’s chief purpose. A summary may advocate neither for nor against the proposal. It should identify the principal legal change without concealing material consequences or using language designed primarily to persuade.

This distinction is especially important because constitutional amendments are difficult to reverse. A proposed amendment generally requires approval from at least 60% of voters and, once adopted, becomes part of the Florida Constitution rather than an ordinary statute.

Readers seeking additional background may review our article, “Understanding the Florida Constitution: An Overview.”

What happens next

The principal issues to watch are:

1. The Attorney General’s revised ballot title and summary;
2. Whether the revised language satisfies the trial court’s order;
3. Whether the challengers raise new objections;
4. Whether either side seeks appellate review; and
5. How local governments explain the proposal’s potential effect on revenue and public services.

The legal question is not simply whether taxes should rise or fall. It is whether voters receive a sufficiently clear and neutral explanation of the constitutional choice they are being asked to make.

Two Different St. Petersburg Infrastructure Questions: Utility Rates and the GO Bond

St. Petersburg residents may hear the proposed utility-rate increases and the proposed general-obligation bond discussed together. They are related to the same broad infrastructure challenges, but they are legally and financially different.

The utility proposal would affect recurring monthly bills. The general-obligation bond would authorize long-term borrowing backed by property-tax revenue.

Understanding that distinction is important.

Proposed Utility-Rate Changes

The City of St. Petersburg is considering changes to rates for:

• Potable water;
• Wastewater;
• Reclaimed water;
• Stormwater; and
• Sanitation services.

The City Council’s first reading is scheduled for August 13 at 3:00 p.m. A public hearing and final adoption proceeding are scheduled for August 27 after 5:00 p.m. If approved, the changes are expected to take effect on October 1.

According to the City, a typical single-family customer using approximately 3,500 gallons per month could experience an overall increase of approximately:

• 6.86% without reclaimed-water service; or
• 7.71% with reclaimed-water service.

Depending on the property’s stormwater tier, the City estimates that a typical residential bill could increase by approximately $10.18 to $13.82 per month.

The City’s full proposal, rate tables, and hearing information are available on its Current Utility Rates and Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 Changes page.

Why the proposal matters to businesses and commercial tenants

For a household, a monthly increase may be unwelcome but manageable. For a restaurant, apartment complex, laundry, salon, hotel, medical provider, or other water-intensive business, the cumulative increase may be significantly larger.

Commercial tenants should also review their leases. Depending on the agreement, utility charges may be:

• Paid directly by the tenant;
• Allocated among tenants;
• Included in common-area maintenance charges;
• Passed through as additional rent; or
• Included within a triple-net lease structure.

A business may therefore experience an increase even when the utility account is technically held by the landlord.

Our discussion of the dangers and financial implications of triple-net leases in Florida provides additional context for reviewing operating-expense obligations.

The City states that the proposed increases are intended to support aging infrastructure, maintenance, regulatory compliance, resiliency, and capital improvements. Residents and businesses may nevertheless reasonably ask whether the proposed rates are necessary, whether the underlying projects are appropriately prioritized, and how the increases will affect affordability.

Those are precisely the questions a public hearing is designed to address.

Proposed $600 Million General-Obligation Bond

St. Petersburg voters are also expected to consider whether the City should be authorized to issue up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for improvements to its potable-water, wastewater, and stormwater systems.

The proposed bonds would be backed by the City’s full faith and credit, including its authority to levy ad valorem property taxes. The City estimates an impact of approximately 0.96 mills, or about $96 annually for each $100,000 of taxable property value.

The bonds could have maturities of up to thirty years and would likely be issued in multiple stages rather than as a single $600 million transaction. Additional information is available through the City’s 2026 General-Obligation Bond information page.

What voter authorization would mean

A “yes” vote would not necessarily mean that the City immediately borrows and spends the entire $600 million. It would authorize the City to issue bonds within the approved limits and for the identified purposes.

A “no” vote would not eliminate the need for infrastructure work. According to the City, projects would continue through existing revenue sources and pay-as-you-go financing, but completion could take longer.

The legal and financial questions include:

• Which projects may receive bond proceeds;
• How the projects will be prioritized;
• Whether cost estimates are realistic;
• How debt-service obligations will affect future tax rates;
• What oversight will accompany the expenditures;
• Whether promised projects are legally enforceable; and
• How the bond program interacts with monthly utility-rate increases.

The utility proposal and bond referendum should therefore be evaluated separately. One concerns the rates customers pay for ongoing services. The other concerns long-term public borrowing secured by property taxes.

Duke Energy Franchise Expires, but Electrical Service Continues

St. Petersburg’s thirty-year franchise agreement with Duke Energy expired on August 1.

A franchise agreement generally addresses a utility’s use of public rights-of-way, franchise fees, infrastructure access, maintenance obligations, and the contractual relationship between the utility and the municipality. The expiration of the agreement did not automatically terminate Duke Energy’s authority or obligation to provide electricity within St. Petersburg.

Duke continues to provide service under the broader regulatory framework administered by the Florida Public Service Commission. Customers did not lose electrical service merely because the municipal franchise term ended.

Duke has published additional information on its St. Petersburg franchise page. Local reporting has likewise emphasized that the expiration did not mean an interruption in service.

We previously examined the issue in “St. Pete Beach Sign Lawsuit, Duke Energy and Election Law: Why Government Decisions Matter Close to Home.”

The larger question is what comes next

The City authorized a feasibility study examining whether St. Petersburg could create or acquire a municipal electric utility. That process does not mean municipalization will occur. It is intended to evaluate the financial, operational, regulatory, and legal feasibility of such a system.

Among the questions that require analysis are:

• The cost of acquiring or replacing Duke’s infrastructure;
• The source of financing;
• The effect on rates;
• Reliability and storm-response capability;
• Staffing and management requirements;
• Existing bond and regulatory obligations;
• The treatment of Duke employees and assets;
• The value of a renewed franchise agreement; and
• Whether municipal ownership would create long-term savings or additional financial risk.

The City may ultimately negotiate another franchise arrangement, pursue municipal ownership, or adopt some other contractual structure. No final decision has been made.

Because the next mayor and City Council may participate in those decisions, the Duke Energy issue is another example of why municipal elections can have long-term financial and legal consequences.

The Burg Redevelopment Moves into the Negotiation Stage

St. Petersburg selected “The Burg” proposal, led by Thompson Whitney Blake, for the principal portion of the Historic Gas Plant District redevelopment. The proposal contemplates more than 3,600 affordable and workforce-housing units, infrastructure improvements, parks, cultural facilities, workforce training, and a small-business center.

The City separately selected the Pinellas County Housing Authority to develop an affordable senior-housing project on another portion of the property.

The selection was an important milestone, but it was not final approval of the redevelopment.

The City must still negotiate a term sheet and more detailed development agreements. A community-benefits process and additional public engagement are also expected. Final agreements must ultimately be presented to the City Council before construction may proceed. The City’s initial selection announcement is available here.

Our earlier analysis, “The Burg Bid Was Selected: What Happens Next for St. Pete Residents?”, explains why the distinction between selection and final approval matters.

Power Design joins the workforce-development effort

Power Design, a major St. Petersburg-based company, has reportedly joined the development team to assist with workforce development, apprenticeships, and skilled-trades training.

That commitment may become an important part of the project, particularly if it results in enforceable opportunities for local residents. The meaningful legal questions will concern what is ultimately included in the negotiated agreements—not merely what appears in a proposal or announcement.

Residents and businesses should monitor:

• The negotiated purchase price and financing structure;
• Affordable and workforce-housing requirements;
• The definition of “affordable” housing;
• Local hiring and apprenticeship obligations;
• Small-business participation;
• Community-benefits commitments;
• Public infrastructure costs;
• Development deadlines;
• Default provisions and remedies;
• Public ownership or control of land;
• The treatment of cultural and historic resources; and
• The circumstances under which the City may terminate or modify the agreement.

A strong proposal is valuable. A carefully drafted, enforceable agreement is what determines whether the proposal’s promises become reality.

Senate Committee Advances Todd Blanche’s Attorney General Nomination

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12–10 on August 4 to advance Todd Blanche’s nomination to serve as United States Attorney General.

The nomination has now been placed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar. The committee vote does not constitute final confirmation. The nomination must still be considered by the full Senate.

Official information is available through the Senate Judiciary Committee’s nomination materials, its August 4 announcement, and the committee’s official vote results.

The Attorney General leads the Department of Justice and influences federal criminal enforcement, civil litigation, constitutional positions, regulatory challenges, election litigation, antitrust policy, civil-rights enforcement, and the federal government’s positions before the courts.

Supporters of Blanche’s nomination have emphasized his experience and prior service within the Department. Opponents have raised questions regarding independence, conflicts, and the Department’s approach to politically sensitive investigations.

The next legally significant event will be a full Senate vote or other action on the nomination.

Was the Proposed VA Disability Bill Voted Down?

The answer requires an important clarification.

The House of Representatives did not vote against H.R. 9237 on final passage. Instead, on July 16, the House considered a motion to recommit the bill. That motion failed by a vote of 210–211. A motion to recommit is a procedural effort to return or amend a bill before final passage; it is not the same as voting on whether the complete bill should become law.

After the procedural vote, House leadership withdrew the legislation before a final passage vote could occur. H.R. 9237 therefore did not pass the House, but it also was not formally defeated on final passage. It remains possible that the proposal, or portions of it, could return after the congressional recess or be incorporated into another legislative package. The official roll-call vote is available through the Clerk of the House.

Current veterans’ disability rules have not changed

H.R. 9237 has not become law. The proposed changes to future sleep-apnea and tinnitus ratings are therefore not currently effective.

We previously discussed the proposal in “H.R. 9237 Could Change VA Sleep Apnea and Tinnitus Ratings: Why Veterans Should Review Their Claims Now.”

The bill includes numerous provisions concerning veterans’ benefits and health care. Some provisions have received broad support. The controversy arises in part because the package also proposes prospective changes to how certain tinnitus and sleep-apnea claims would be evaluated.

Under the proposal as previously introduced, many existing ratings would not automatically be reduced merely because the law changed. Future claims, however, could be evaluated under different standards depending on the final language and effective date.

Veterans should not file unsupported or speculative claims merely because legislation is pending. Veterans with documented symptoms, diagnoses, prescribed CPAP treatment, service records, or other legitimate evidence should nevertheless avoid unnecessary delay in obtaining an individualized review.

Additional information about the current claims system is available through our Veterans Disability practice page, our guide to understanding VA disability, and our recent VA appeals update.

HOA and Condominium Assessments: When Unpaid Charges Become Liens

Homeowners’ association and condominium assessments are becoming a larger legal and financial concern throughout Florida and the country.

National reporting identified approximately 6,376 HOA-related foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2026—roughly 40% more than two years earlier. The number of association liens also reportedly increased during 2025. Rising insurance costs, reserve obligations, structural repairs, maintenance expenses, and inflation have contributed to larger regular and special assessments.

Florida owners should understand that an association assessment is not merely an ordinary invoice that can be safely ignored.

Florida homeowners’ associations

For homeowners’ associations governed by Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, unpaid assessments may give rise to:

• Interest;
• Late charges;
• Collection costs;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
• A lien against the property; and
• A foreclosure action after compliance with applicable statutory procedures.

The governing law is principally found in section 720.3085, Florida Statutes.

Florida condominiums

Condominium associations are generally governed by Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The applicable rules are similar in purpose but are not identical to the HOA provisions.

Section 718.116 addresses assessment liability, liens, interest, collection expenses, foreclosure procedures, and circumstances in which a purchaser may become responsible for unpaid amounts associated with the unit. The statute is available here.

Owners, boards, purchasers, and attorneys should avoid assuming that the condominium and homeowners’ association statutes are interchangeable.

Why relatively small assessments can become serious cases

An owner may initially dispute only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. Once the account is referred for collection, however, the claimed balance may grow through:

• Interest;
• Late fees;
• Administrative charges;
• Attorneys’ fees;
• Title-search expenses;
• Recording costs;
• Service expenses; and
• Litigation costs.

The dispute may then become more expensive to resolve than the original assessment.

Remaining current on a mortgage also does not necessarily prevent an association from pursuing its own lien remedies. An association lien is legally distinct from the mortgage, although questions of priority and distribution may arise if multiple lienholders assert interests in the same property.

Practical steps for property owners

An owner who receives a collection letter, notice of intent to lien, recorded lien, or foreclosure notice should act promptly.

Appropriate steps may include:

1. Requesting a complete account ledger;
2. Reviewing the declaration, bylaws, rules, and assessment resolutions;
3. Confirming whether payments were correctly credited;
4. Determining whether the assessment was properly authorized;
5. Reviewing the statutory notices and deadlines;
6. Identifying disputed attorneys’ fees or collection costs;
7. Preserving proof of all payments and communications;
8. Requesting a payment arrangement where appropriate; and
9. Obtaining legal advice before a lien or foreclosure deadline expires.

Ignoring the correspondence generally makes the situation more difficult and expensive.

Practical steps for association boards

Boards also have obligations. An association should:

• Follow its governing documents and the applicable statute;
• Maintain accurate ledgers;
• Apply collection policies consistently;
• Provide required notices;
• Avoid selective enforcement;
• Document board decisions;
• Distinguish regular assessments from special assessments;
• Consider reasonable payment arrangements when appropriate; and
• Confirm that claimed fees and costs are legally recoverable.

Aggressive collection is not a substitute for statutory compliance. A defective notice, inaccurate account, improperly authorized assessment, or inconsistent enforcement decision may create defenses and additional litigation.

Buyers and sellers should investigate before closing

Before purchasing or selling property within an association, parties should obtain and carefully review the applicable estoppel information and closing documents. The review should identify:

• Unpaid regular assessments;
• Pending special assessments;
• Violations and fines;
• Approval requirements;
• Anticipated capital projects;
• Pending litigation;
• Insurance concerns; and
• Reserve obligations.

Association disputes may involve real estate law, contract interpretation, statutory compliance, lien rights, and civil litigation. Additional information about the litigation process is available in our overview of Florida civil litigation and our Business and Commercial Litigation page.

What to Watch Next

The coming weeks contain several important legal and political deadlines:

August 6

• Vote-by-mail request deadline for the St. Petersburg municipal primary;
• Senate committee contempt vote concerning Dr. Fauci.

August 8–16

• Early voting for the municipal primary.

Approximately Mid-August

• Revised property-tax ballot language expected within the court-ordered period;
• Possible additional litigation concerning the revised summary.

August 13

• First reading of St. Petersburg’s proposed utility-rate changes.

August 18

• St. Petersburg municipal primary election.

August 27

• Public hearing and anticipated final consideration of the proposed utility rates.

Matters without a fixed public deadline

• Possible Senate or Justice Department action concerning Dr. Fauci;
• Full Senate consideration of Todd Blanche’s nomination;
• Completion of St. Petersburg’s Duke Energy and municipal-utility analysis;
• Negotiation of The Burg term sheet and community-benefits commitments;
• Possible renewed House consideration of H.R. 9237;
• Additional proceedings concerning the property-tax ballot amendment; and
• Continued association collection and foreclosure activity.

November 3

Florida voters are expected to consider the property-tax constitutional amendment, while St. Petersburg voters are expected to consider the general-obligation bond proposal and municipal general-election contests.

Why We Continue to Follow These Developments

The law does not exist in a vacuum.

A congressional contempt dispute implicates constitutional protections and the separation of powers. A ballot-language case affects whether voters receive a fair explanation of a proposed constitutional amendment. Utility rates and public borrowing affect households, landlords, tenants, and businesses. Development agreements determine whether public promises become enforceable obligations. Veterans legislation can alter the value and availability of disability benefits. Association assessments can place a person’s home at risk.

The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. operates as a community-focused “First Counsel” law firm because legal problems frequently cross traditional practice-area boundaries. Our attorneys assist clients with matters involving business law, civil litigation, real estate and community disputes, veterans’ disability claims, estate planning, probate, and related legal concerns.

To discuss a specific legal issue, readers may contact The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A..

This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, court proceedings, legislative proposals, and governmental policies may change after publication. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel concerning their individual circumstances.