Suncoast League of Cities Report: Advocacy vs. Education on Ballot Measures
With recent local referendums and the legislative session in progress, legal guidance on advocacy versus education was a timely topic at the Suncoast League of Cities meeting on February 20, 2026. The presentation focused on the legal framework that governs how local officials may communicate about ballot initiatives.
The guest speaker, Bill Barrett, Chief of Staff for the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, brought more than 30 years of experience in Florida state and local government. His career began as an aide in the Florida Legislature, followed by work in local government relations representing cities and counties. He later served as a state lobbyist for approximately 25 years and has also worked in local government consulting-all of which he said provided him with extensive experience and a strong understanding of legislative and governmental processes in Tallahassee.
My report contains his practical guidance on how local officials can navigate the line between education and advocacy.
He began by explaining Florida Statute 106.113, the key law governing local governments, and then highlighted a newer provision, Florida Statute 106.151, which extends comparable restrictions to state officials.
The first important point identified was this: Local governments may not use public funds or government resources to influence voters regarding a ballot measure.
The law prohibits political advertising or communications directed to voters about a referendum or amendment when public resources are used to influence the outcome.
However, the law does allow governments to provide neutral, factual information.
For example, a city may report official actions of the council, respond to questions from residents, or post factual information on the city’s website. Budget information, economic impact statements, or revenue projections can also be shared, as long as they are accurate, fair, and impartial.
An example of acceptable communication might be something like:
“If the amendment passes, the city’s projected revenue reduction would be approximately $3.6 million per year.”
That statement presents a factual projection without encouraging a particular vote.
Where the line can be crossed is when communications move from facts into conclusions or persuasion. For example, saying something like:
“If this amendment passes, we will have to close three fire stations.”
That type of statement may be interpreted as advocating against the measure because it predicts specific consequences that have not been officially determined by the governing body.
It is also important to remember that elected officials do not lose their personal First Amendment rights.
Under Florida law, he advised that officials may express personal opinions about ballot measures, attend community meetings, write letters, support advocacy groups, or participate in campaigns. However, they must do so in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the city.
To avoid confusion, it is recommended that officials clearly state when they are speaking personally. He provided an example of a simple statement that would make that distinction:
“These are my personal views and I am not speaking on behalf of the city.”
Officials should also avoid using any government resources for advocacy activities – including things like government email accounts, official letterhead, city staff, vehicles, equipment, work time, or other public resources.
The presenter also discussed the role of the Florida Supreme Court in the ballot initiative process.
Before the Court approves ballot language, officials generally have more flexibility to discuss potential impacts and to educate residents about proposed legislation or initiatives.
Once the Court approves the ballot language and the measure is formally placed on the ballot, it becomes an official ballot initiative. At that point, the stricter restrictions under Florida Statute 106.113 apply to communications that use public resources.
Conclusion
The presenter recommended several best practices:
- Keep government communications neutral and factual
- Clearly separate personal opinions from official communications
- Avoid using any government resources for advocacy
- And consult the city attorney whenever there is uncertainty
Every meeting or educational opportunity always offers insights that I’m glad to share. This report will also be added to the city website.