Draft Explanations Released for Proposed 2026 Initiated Measure to Limit Property Tax Assessment Increases
PIERRE, S.D. – As required by state law, an explanation for a proposed initiated measure that would limit annual property tax assessment increases for non-agricultural property, 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 measure to help assist the voters. The sponsor of the proposed initiated measure is Joe Hurley of Sioux Falls.
This proposed initiated measure would limit annual property tax assessment increases on all non-agricultural land to no more than 2.5 percent of a base amount. If the measure is approved by voters, the new limit would start with the 2027 assessment.
The ballot explanation can be found here.
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 Oct. 21, 2024, and the deadline for comments on this explanation is Thursday, October 31, at the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota. The final explanation is due to the Secretary of State on Tuesday, November 12.
The initiated measure would require 17,509 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2026 general election ballot.
To file written comments on a 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 E. Hwy. 14, Suite 1
Pierre, SD 57501
Comments that are hand delivered must be received by the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota, by Thursday, October 31.
Comments can be emailed to: [email protected] by the end of the day on Thursday, October 31. 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 actually a pretty tame proposal. I was expecting something far more radical.
What this does is shifts the tax burden to properties that haven’t gone up by as much.
How so? Genuinely asking. Every property in my area has seen enormous increases since 2020. If this resets the base back to that date, which would be before the huge increases, I’m not sure how this would shift the burden. I can see where this would throw county and city budgets into a tailspin and wreak havoc with the mill levy.
The shift occurs over time, as more expensive houses tend to increase in value quicker than lower end houses. Thus, owners of less expensive homes with stagnant values end up picking up a larger share of the overall property tax burden.
Jackley has been throwing heat lately. I’ve been impressed.
The boldness is not the same guy we saw in 2018. Keep it up Marty!
Pay attention to the ballot question in North Dakota to eliminate property taxes. If we don’t fix the high property taxes in SD, there will be proposals like the ND one.
Ismay is already trying to get support for that very thing. It was one of his campaign pillars.
Ismay is going to be in leadership and he will get this bill done.
You forgot to say “for we the people”. Ismay isn’t going to be in leadership. And he sure isn’t going to get support to eliminate property taxes. Of ALL the stupid things he’s ever said, this idea ranks almost at the top.
I’m taking odds that Ismay doesn’t get a SINGLE bill passed. At least nothing he’s authored. He writes incomprehensible garbage and he always eats the crayons before he’s finished writing.
There should be no property tax on the first one acre of owner-occupied land.
All the autocrat tears for cutting taxes; I remember when Republicans were for less government spending, anyone else? Now, they all want to support giving Kristi enough money each year, with zero accountability, as if she won the lottery. Quite the fiscally responsible representation we have.
Not sure how property taxes relate to your comment? Property taxes don’t go to the state. They are divided between the school district, county and cities where collected.
Our tax dollars are all connected; take it from one pool, and appropriations would have to make up for it from another pool. This isn’t rocket science accounting here, it is all state government money, regardless of its origin.
The only way it’s connected is through the school subsidy formulas. It may not be rocket science, but those formulas are very complicated and the interplay isn’t simple.
That is a very obtuse interpretation of government revenue. The government will find funding one way or another, regardless of how dollars are currently appropriated. This is why SD GOP is claiming they will add an income tax if we pass amendment G.
Thanks, but I’ve got a pretty good handle on it. You’re talking about different levels of government, and it’s not all “state government money”. It will be the county, municipality and school districts that need to find the funding. Amendment G is not a good example as the state actually gets sales tax and it would need to be replaced, hence the likelyhood of an income tax. Playing with property taxes is going to lead to things like additional “wheel taxes”, licensing fees, etc. You are right in that they will find a way to make up the money.