Search
Close this search box.

Unofficial results released for five FWB charter questions that were blocked on election night

A joint motion from the city and the Watch Group led to a modified court order allowing the Supervisor of Elections to tabulate and release the results. Certification remains on hold.

Two weeks after election night produced only one official result out of six charter amendment questions, unofficial vote totals for the remaining five are now public.

  • The Okaloosa County Supervisor of Elections released the figures after Circuit Judge Stone granted a joint request from the city and the FWB Watch Group to modify the injunction that had kept the results out of election night reporting.

The unofficial results show Questions 2, 3 and 4 received majority support while Questions 5 and 6 did not. Question 6, which asked voters whether to repeal the voter-approved 3% cap on annual budget expenditure increases, failed with 687 votes in favor and 907 against, or about 43 percent support. The cap was approved by more than 60 percent of voters in November 2024.

Question 5, which would have authorized compensation for elected city officials in the form of monetary pay or health insurance coverage, also failed with 641 in favor and 954 against, or about 40 percent support.

Questions 2 through 4 each passed with between 56 and 59 percent support:

QuestionSubjectYesNoYes %
Q2Term limits, vacancies, filing fees88569456.0%
Q3Council meetings and governance89568656.6%
Q4City operations and officer duties93465658.7%
Q5Elected official compensation64195440.2%
Q6Spending cap repeal68790743.1%

The results are unofficial. Certification of Questions 2 through 6 remains barred by court order, and whether these outcomes take effect will depend on the resolution of the Watch Group’s lawsuit over the ballot language.

How the results were released

On election night, March 10, the Supervisor of Elections released only the result for Question 1, which moved city elections to November. That measure passed with 84 percent support. Question 1 was the only question not challenged in the Watch Group’s lawsuit.

A circuit court order issued March 3 had prohibited the SOE from including results for Questions 2 through 6 in election night reporting or on the SOE website, and barred the canvassing board from certifying those results until the litigation concluded, including all appeals. The order noted, however, that the results were not confidential and remained subject to Florida’s public records law.

  • On election day, March 10, the city filed a notice of appeal challenging the injunction. On March 25, the city voluntarily dismissed that appeal with the First District Court of Appeal.

That same day, the city and the Watch Group filed a joint stipulated motion asking the court to modify the injunction. Both sides agreed that allowing the results to be tabulated and released served the public interest, while continuing to prohibit certification pending further order of the court. The Supervisor of Elections did not object.

Judge Stone granted the motion, and the SOE released the unofficial results.

What remains unresolved

The results are now public, but none of the five questions can take effect. The Watch Group’s January lawsuit argues the ballot language on all five failed to meet the requirements of Florida Statute 101.161, which mandates clear and unambiguous explanatory statements of each amendment’s chief purpose.

The court has yet to rule on the merits of that challenge. If the city prevails, the results will be certified and the charter amendments that received majority support, Questions 2, 3 and 4, would go into effect. If the Watch Group prevails, the results will not be certified regardless of the vote totals.

Even under that scenario, Questions 5 and 6 would be unaffected. Voters rejected both measures.

The city council adopted all six charter amendment ordinances on Dec. 16, 2025. The Watch Group filed its lawsuit on Jan. 14, 2026.

Read the full election night story here.

PROMOTION

Join the conversation...

Continue reading 👇

Community Comments

“I will keep an open mind for now. Data Centers are complex and must be evaluated thoroughly before approving any applications. Our county officials must keep all the facts accurate...”
Respond
“How do you sign up for bell ringing or do we just show up day of?”
Respond
“If there is a data center built anywhere near my home, my home goes up for sale. We are currently living part-time in Fredericksburg, Virginia. You do not want these...”
Respond
Scott Schaeffler commented on WordroW: September 3, 2026
“2:34, 5 attempts”
Respond
“This is the fly in the ointment. “It would not affect school district taxes, independent special districts, fire districts, non-ad valorem assessments, MSTUs or MSBUs.” Special Districts, fire districts, etc...”
Respond
“It is shockingly past time to end these invasive citizen surveillance cameras. So many of us are stunned that our hired and elected officials were willing to abuse, even criminalize,...”
Respond
“What a great idea and such a wonderful way to honor Dolly! Love this!”
Respond
“I what an outstanding young lady this Kate Jannazo is!!! Congratulations on all your accomplishments!”
Respond
“They should not be allowed to sell off the property. We do not need another hotel or apartment buildings. Behind city hall we have a neighborhood and city athletic fields....”
Respond

GET OUR FREE LOCAL NEWSLETTER

Get the weekday email that actually makes reading local news enjoyable again.