Draft Explanation Released For Proposed 2026 Initiated Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Property Taxes
PIERRE, S.D. – At the request of the sponsor, an explanation for a proposed initiated Constitutional Amendment that would repeal property taxes in South Dakota and replace them with a “retail transaction” tax, which would be on the 2026 general election ballot if approved, has been submitted for public review by the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office.
Attorney General Marty Jackley takes no position on any such proposal for purposes of the ballot explanation. He has provided a fair and neutral explanation on the initiated Constitutional Amendment to help assist the voters as required by state law. The sponsor of the proposed initiated Constitutional Amendment is Abolish Property Taxes SD, a Statewide Ballot Question Committee formed by Julie Frye-Mueller, Matt Smith, and Mike Mueller.
This proposed initiated Constitutional Amendment repeals South Dakota’s property tax scheme set forth in the Constitution and replaces it with a tax “on each retail transaction.” For each “retail transaction” of $15 or more, a flat tax of $1.50 is assessed. For each “retail transaction” less than $15, a 10% tax is assessed.
The ballot explanation can be found here.
Octo 17 2025 Ballot Measure Retail Transaction Tax by Pat Powers
State law requires the Attorney General draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. The Attorney General’s explanation is meant to be an “objective, clear, and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.
Once the Attorney General has filed and posted the draft explanation, the public has 10 days to provide written comment. The explanation was filed October 17, 2025, and the deadline for comments on this explanation is October 27, 2025 at the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota. The final explanation is due to the Secretary of State on November 5, 2025.
The initiated Constitutional Amendment would require 35,017 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2026 general election ballot.
To file written comments regarding the language, not the merits on the proposed draft Attorney General’s explanation, please use one of the following methods below. Copies of all received comments will be posted on this website.
Comments may be submitted via mail, or through hand delivery, to the Attorney General’s Office at:
Office of the Attorney General
Ballot Comment
1302 S.D. E. Hwy. 1889, Suite #1
Pierre, SD 57501
Comments that are hand delivered must be received by the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota, by October 27, 2025.
Comments may also be emailed to ATGballotcomments@state.sd.us by October 27, 2025. Comments should be clearly expressed in the body of the email. The Attorney General’s Office will not open attachments in an effort to prevent malware or other digital threats. Please include your name and contact information when submitting your comment. The title of the comment must be included in the subject line of the email.
-30-
This is an awful idea. Will it help me? You bet! But it will severely hurt low income families that rent now and already have trouble making ends meet. They pick up a burden of taxes that will be a greater portion of their income than South Dakotans in the middle class and above. Simply not right. More money taken from the poor to give the rich. Disgusting.
SDGOP has finally gone off the deep end ….Great to see Mr Personality Jackley sucking the MAGA teat
He lost me when he signed on with California Karleys 10 Commandments bill. Meanwhile Louisiana and every other state who enacted it is spending millions in lawsuits and injunctions. He’s all about job security I guess. I find it completely hilarious the Colorado Matt Smith is on record saying Hansen and the rest saved us from the largest tax hike in the history for voting down Tony V’s 1 percent sales tax raise to lower property taxes and then he comes back with this. You’ve got to be kidding me.
Mr. Jackley is a pretend MAGAteater indeed, but why are we blaming this measure initiated by the insaner Freyes and Muellers on him? It is Mr. Jackley’s job to have a lackey write up something about this measure initiated and circulate it for us to poke holes in.
I will not be signing this petition and a big fat no if it hits the ballots. This is the most unthought out take on property taxes I’ve ever seen. It’s grossly unfair to impose a tax like that on people who can barely afford groceries let alone every single retail transaction?
To quote Margaret Thatcher: NO NO NO!
Ok
What if the Heck are they thinking? Seriously?
Should there be property tax reform? Yes.
Is this the way to do it? NO NO NO NO NO
The dirty secret -The state costs money to run. The expenses currently being paid for with property taxes will still need to be paid. The amount of moeny going out will still need to come in.
This will shft the payment burden, not eliminate it. Mostly to people who are poor and living paycheck to paycheck. It will be especially bad for people who rent.
But, you say, Renters don’t pay property taxes!
Unless the landlord is an idiot, yes they do. It’s factored into the rent they pay. If you have a fourplex of appartments and the annual property tax is 9600, any landlord with any brains makes sure that around 200 of each rent check each month is earmarked for property taxes.
How likely, do you think it would be, that the landlords would cut all their tenants rent by $200/month? They would keep paying their rent AND their grocery bills would go up.
You have a choice of how to raise funds for the government:
Property Tax
Income Tax
Sales Tax
Fees
Just ripping out any one of them means you’ll have to increase how money comes in from one of the the other options. Sales taxes can be unpredictable, and hit the poorest people harder than the richest.
We do need property tax reform…but this solution is going to be worse than the problem.
Where is Lee Schoenbeck when we really need him. Sir, come out of retirement.