logo
Competing property tax bills get their day on the floor

Competing property tax bills get their day on the floor

Yahoo27-02-2025
Lawmakers are looking to address property taxes this week. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan)
Property tax discussions have dominated the halls of the Montana capitol this week, as Republican leaders pushed back against criticism from Gov. Greg Gianforte that legislators had yet to send him a property tax relief bill to sign.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pushing proposals on the topic, and six property tax proposals in the two chambers moved forward on Wednesday.
House Democrats moved two tax bills on the floor on Wednesday and Republicans in the House also brought a proposal to the floor Wednesday. Republican leaders in the legislature, meanwhile, spent part of Tuesday refuting comments from Gianforte during a Monday call-in session on conservative talk radio.
'I think taxes are too high,' Gianforte said. 'I laid out my agenda during the State of the State. We have a proposal that would permanently reduce property taxes, I haven't seen that bill to my desk yet. I proposed a full percentage point cut in income taxes that we funded because we were fiscally responsible over the last four years. I haven't got that bill to my desk yet. In fact, as of last week, the only bills I've got from the legislature, one renamed a bridge and the other one bought lunch money for the legislature.'
He added: 'I just wish the legislature could focus on getting the work done for the people of Montana.'
Legislative Republicans quickly sent out a joint press release highlighting when the governor got his legislation to them. House Bill 231, sponsored by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad was introduced on Jan. 16, while Senate Bill 323, sponsored by Sen. Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, was introduced on Feb. 13.
'The governor understands the legislative process and should have submitted his proposals earlier if he wanted them enacted more quickly,' the joint Republican House and Senate release stated.
Jones said he understands the frustration and spoke to some of the dissension surrounding the property tax discussion, even among Republican leadership.
'Some legislators are busting their asses to try to move this and some are being a little obstructionist,' Jones told the Daily Montanan. 'I know it frustrated the speaker (Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage), because he has been trying to get this stuff to vote. And, you know, the (Senate) President, not so much. He's been trying to get it not to vote. It's not his vision. He doesn't like that.'
Meanwhile, House Democrats found support for their bills in the Republican-dominated session. House Bill 154, introduced by Rep. Jonathan Karlen, D-Missoula, and House Bill 155, from Rep. Mark Thane, D-Missoula, both cleared significant hurdles in the House on Wednesday. They are up for a third reading on Thursday afternoon and if approved again, will be on their way to the Senate.
If nothing is done, there's worry property tax rates could spike again because of a state law that reassesses property.
'We need to come home with some kind of property tax relief, and if we don't, we're not going to get elected again. They will come after all of us,' Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, said Wednesday on the Senate floor.
House Bill 231, known as the 'Homestead bill,' and Karlen's HB 154 are tied together through an amendment passed in the Appropriations Committee last week.
Jones' bill tries to shift some of the tax burden onto those who are not residents of the state, but own property in Montana.
'There's a whole group of people out there that just don't pay income tax in Montana,' Jones said in an interview Thursday morning. 'They're not breaking the law. They just don't live here more than seven months a year, but they benefit from all the dollars of the income tax.'
Karlen's bill is essentially a tax credit with stipulations that renters could receive money back, instead of those breaks going directly to landlords.
Jones gave a passionate defense of his bill on the floor, saying it would directly impact 230,000 Montana homeowners, 130,000 renters and 30,000 small businesses.
'I get that some folks might be angry with me and just vote against this bill because I'm the sponsor,' Jones said on the House floor. 'You know, I get that. I may look a little like Santa Claus without hair, but I'm not always the most cuddly of personalities. I don't always claim to be an elegant speaker. I have a face made for radio, but I do usually do pretty well with numbers. This is a difficult problem to make work.'
Doubly so, Jones said, because the governor has expressed no interest in a sales tax.
'The governor said he wouldn't sign the sales tax,' Jones said. 'So you're gonna have to try to build a property tax solution with the cards that you have in your hand.'
While the Gov. Gianforte favors HB 231, Jones said the bill was his idea, not the governor's and the representative said that until he pushed the Governor's Office to model it, they felt it wouldn't work either.
'We have to find a way, because we're still selling the land in Montana,' Jones said. 'We're just selling it to a whole lot of folks that don't pay income tax here.'
Jones' bill seeks to shift away some tax burden currently on full-time residents.
If HB 154 doesn't pass and HB 231 does, rates on properties that are twice the median residential value or less drop from 0.9% to 0.74%. That amendment was added on Feb. 20.
'The way I see that coordinating language is that it's some recognition from the Appropriations Committee that the governor's bill alone will not solve this problem,' Karlen told the Daily Montanan.
However, in the Senate, Republican leadership expressed concern the tax relief in HB 231 won't benefit people that actually need it. During a Tuesday media session, Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, said tying the rates to market value means some rural communities, especially in the eastern reaches of the state, drop the property tax rate for people who aren't especially concerned with it.
'Here we're seeing the property tax problems, Gallatin, Flathead, Missoula, those homes are all going to be in the higher tax rate,' Regier said. 'And a home in Circle, that isn't as high as the median, they're going to see way lower rates than the people that are complaining about property tax.'
HB 231 is among Gianforte's legislative priorities and also seeks to push taxation more on large businesses and less on smaller ones.
Jones pointed out in an interview that part of the intention is to make sure small businesses, like a cafe, are not taxed the same as a large refinery or other big industrial business.
Karlen's bill would establish a Housing Fairness Income Tax Credit, which is aimed at property owners and also includes relief for renters.
It passed a second reading in the House, 60-40.
It would help renters by giving them a tax break that theoretically would help with increasing rents. Bills helping renters have not had much luck this session, but Karlen hopes his will help.
In order to qualify for the credit, a taxpayer is required to live in the state for at least nine months during the tax year, occupy a qualified residence for at least seven of those months, and have a household income of less than $150,000.
The credit would also benefit those who are going through a life change, like a spouse dying. In that situation, the property tax stays the same but household income would decrease.
Karlen believes there needs to be a 'rebalance' on tax policy. His credit is determined based on property taxes bills or rent-equivalent property taxes paid and there are specific thresholds based on household income.
'House Democrats, we will work with anybody to pass property tax relief,' Karlen said in a Tuesday interview. 'We are doing everything possible, working with anybody that wants to provide a real middle-class tax cut. And I think that the fact that Mark Thane's bill had more votes than any other major property tax policy seems like there's definitely interest there.'
Thane wants to establish a graduated tax rate for residential properties based on market value.
HB 155 passed a second reading on Wednesday, 87-13.
The hope is to spread out taxation among different classes of taxpayers, of which there are 18. In 2022, residential property taxpayers made up 51.85% of the total, while commercial businesses made up another 15.2%. In 2023, residential properties made up almost 58% of property taxes collected in the state.
Under Thane's proposal, residential property taxes would contribute 52.56% of total property taxes and commercial businesses would make up 16.77% of the state's property tax pie.
Additionally, the burden put on agricultural business would be 3.83%, a small decrease from 2022.
'The premise of House Bill 155 is to reduce to essentially that proportional share,' Thane said in an interview.
He's confident in his bill, but also said he's a realist — if nothing else, he said he hopes his bill helps inform HB 231.
'My interest right now is being able to continue the conversation in the Senate,' Thane said. 'To get over to Senate tax so that they understand, number one, that there are other alternatives, and number two, that there can be some pressure applied to continue to refine 231.'
Reiger mentioned Thane's bill on Tuesday, saying some of the ideas in it have some 'merit.'
'The concept of moving the rates, I think, is something that could end up in the final package,' Reiger told assembled media.
Senate Bill 32 passed a second reading on Wednesday afternoon, a proposal from Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls.
SB 32 seeks cuts to property tax rates for many of the classifications that have not been directly addressed in other Republican bills dealing with property taxes. Metal mines, nonproductive mining claims, and utilities would all see their rates cut under the proposal.
'I think this is the most simple, elegant, transparent attempt at reforming property tax, and it's an option for us, and you know, we're getting close to transmittal without too many options available to us,' Trebas said on the Senate floor.
Regulatory bills have to transmit by this week, while bills that deal directly with revenue are subject to a later deadline.
Residential rental properties and commercial property tax rates would increase from 1.35% to 1.65%. Trebas said in a message that rate would impact, 'non owner-occupied homes, so long and short term rentals, second homes.'
Importantly, under his proposal, owner-occupied properties would be taxed at 1.25%.
'If you want to automatically decrease ratepayers' tax or their energy bills, this is a great way to do it,' Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings said during the Senate floor session.
Wednesday, the Senate advanced a couple of other proposals related to property taxes, one to credit residential payers from taxes paid by tourists, and another to express levies in dollars instead of mills. The Senate also 'blasted' two property tax reform bills onto the floor, a procedure to move a bill tabled in committee to the full body.
Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena, is also continuing to push Senate Bill 189, a bill which would reduce residential property taxes from 1.35% to 0.76%. It would also remove a higher tax rate on high-value homes.
Dunwell said she's been working with Rep. Ed Byrne, R-Bigfork, though Byrne's proposal was tabled in committee early this month.
There's hope, Dunwell said, that the 0.76% rate for residential properties might end up in HB 231.
'Unless we drop the tax rate,' Dunwell said. 'All the other stuff is lipstick on a pig.'
Keila Szpaller contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Florida Republican on ‘silly' Epstein files controversy: ‘Release whatever you got'
Florida Republican on ‘silly' Epstein files controversy: ‘Release whatever you got'

The Hill

time13 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Florida Republican on ‘silly' Epstein files controversy: ‘Release whatever you got'

Rep. Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.) weighed in on the 'silly' saga around the files of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, encouraging the Trump administration to release 'whatever you go.' 'I was elected to work, and right now, because of a dead pedophile, Congress is at impasse. We've got paralysis. I've always been a big advocate in public service of full transparency. If the documents are there, release whatever you got,' Patronis said during his Friday appearance on NewsNation's 'The Hill.' Patronis, who represents Florida's 1st congressional district, said he appreciates President Trump putting 'pressure' on Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the grand jury testimony, although he added it is 'kind of silly that we're talking about a dead pedophile that is literally from the grave controlling Congress.' Last week, The Justice Department (DOJ) requested the grand jury transcripts from the Epstein probe to be unsealed. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg declined the request to unseal them on Wednesday. The Trump administration is looking to move on from the Epstein fervor, as the MAGA base has shown outrage over the lack of transparency around the so-called client list and other files —disappointment that surged after the FBI and DOJ's joint memo from earlier this month reaffirmed that Epstein died by suicide in 2019 in jail while awaiting trial. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with British socialite and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell on Thursday and Friday, talking for over nine hours with Epstein's close associate. On Friday, Trump indicated that he has not ruled out a pardon for Maxwell, who is appealing her case to the Supreme Court. 'I'm allowed to do it but it's something I have not thought about,' he said. Patronis, in the Friday interview, said a potential pardon for Maxwell is ultimately up to the president. 'I think a pardon is an incredible gift, and that is for to be rewarded. I don't know if you give a pardon to somebody who helped facilitate the allegations of child pornography, sex crimes, abuse,' Patronis said. 'So again, I think you're going to give me the grounds why she should be even in this discussion.' 'But I mean, if she was a patsy and there's documentation to prove it, then, yeah, this is the president's discretion,' the Florida Republican added.

Donald Trump's Disapproval Rating 'Stuck'
Donald Trump's Disapproval Rating 'Stuck'

Newsweek

time14 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Disapproval Rating 'Stuck'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump's approval rating is "stuck," according to a new poll. The survey, conducted by Quantus Insights between July 21 and 23 among 1,123 registered voters, showed that Trump's approval rating stands at 47 percent, while 50 percent disapprove. That is relatively unchanged from the previous poll conducted earlier this month, which put Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. Every poll conducted by Quantus Insights since early April has put Trump's approval rating between 47 and 48 percent, while his disapproval rating has stayed between 48 and 50 percent. "For a president who thrives on momentum, the static nature of these numbers is a signal: the base is holding, but the middle isn't moving," Quantus pollster Jaon Corley wrote. The poll shows that the ceiling that is forming among Trump's supporters is being defined by sharp and widening demographic splits—by gender, race, education, and geography—that limit Trump's reach even as his base remains intensely loyal. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP But according to Democratic pollster Matt McDermott, this could be a problem for the Republican Party heading into the 2026 midterms. "You don't win elections by doubling down on your base while bleeding swing voters," he told Newsweek. A Firm Republican Backbone Among Republican voters, Trump remains overwhelmingly popular. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans approve of his performance, including 91 percent of white Republican men and 91 percent of white Republican women, virtually unchanged from the July 14—16 wave, when approval stood at 90 percent among Republicans overall. His approval is also strong among white noncollege voters (46 percent), rural residents (49 percent), and white men overall (56 percent), many of whom formed the backbone of his 2024 electoral coalition. In particular, rural white males give Trump 54 percent approval, with just 46 percent disapproving, reinforcing the president's solid hold on the white working-class male vote. Cracks Emerge Among Women and Younger Voters By contrast, Trump is struggling with key swing constituencies. Among women, his net approval is -10 points (43 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove), and the gender gap remains stark. While 52 percent of men approve of his job performance, just 43 percent of women do—a nine-point gap that has remained consistent since mid-July. Younger voters also continue to show deep dissatisfaction. Just 46 percent of voters aged 18—29 approve of Trump, with 51 percent disapproving, similar to the earlier July poll. Among women aged 18—29, approval is just 38 percent, while disapproval reaches 58 percent. But young men have a very different view of Trump. Among men aged 18—29, Trump hits 57 percent approval with a +17 net margin. As a result, Corley said that the notion that young voters broadly oppose Trump is outdated. "Trump's support is male-heavy, younger than expected, and hardening along gender lines. The idea that 'young voters oppose Trump' is outdated. True for women, increasingly false for men," Corley wrote. Independent Voters Slipping Away Meanwhile, the poll shows that as the 2026 midterms approach, Trump's support among independents is eroding. Just 38 percent of independents now approve of his performance, compared to 58 percent who disapprove—a stark 20-point deficit that has worsened since earlier in the month, when his net approval among independents stood at -17 percent. Notably, white independents, once a potential swing bloc for Trump, now disapprove of him by a 57 to 39 percent margin. Approval among nonwhite independents is even lower at 34 percent, with nearly two-thirds disapproving. Racial Gaps Widen Among Black voters, Trump posts 39 percent approval overall, with 50 percent of Black men backing him, a historic high for a Republican. But the poll also reveals a wide gender split, with just 30 percent of Black women backing him. But overall, Trump has seen a boost in support from Black voters, who broke for him 32 percent to 63 percent in the last poll. Among Hispanic voters, the divide is less pronounced. Trump draws 42 percent approval overall, with slightly higher ratings among Hispanic men (46 percent) than women (39 percent). His overall support from Hispanic voters is unchanged from mid-July. "The racial polarization that has long defined American politics is still in place but it's fraying at the edges, and in a country decided by razor-thin margins, the edges matter," Corley wrote. Trump's Approval Plateaus—But Cracks Are Growing Beneath the Surface Quantus' latest poll aligns closely with other recent national surveys, all of which suggest that Donald Trump's support has hit a ceiling, with his approval ratings stabilizing but showing little sign of growth. RMG Research, for example, currently has Trump at 50 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval—a nearly identical pattern to Quantus. Since late May, RMG has shown Trump's approval hovering between 50 and 52 percent, with disapproval consistently in the 46 to 48 percent range. This points to a remarkably steady public perception of the president, without major gains or losses. Emerson College Polling paints a similar picture. Their latest numbers place Trump at 46 percent approval and 47 percent disapproval. That net disapproval of +1 has been unchanged across their past three surveys, underscoring how locked-in public opinion has become. Fox News polling shows Trump at 46 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval—identical to their June findings. Despite shifts in the news cycle, these figures have shown no movement over the past month. The Trafalgar Group and Insider Advantage also register Trump at 50 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval in their most recent poll. Back in April, their numbers were 46 to 44, indicating that while Trump's approval has ticked up slightly and disapproval has edged down, the overall net approval has remained steady at +2. Meanwhile, the YouGov/Economist poll continues to show Trump underwater, with 41 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval. That's virtually unchanged from a month ago, reinforcing the broader narrative: Trump's support base is solid, but stagnant. But other polls have shown Trump's approval ratings dip to a second-term low nationwide. Newsweek's approval tracker currently places Trump at a net minus 7 rating, with 45 percent of Americans approving and 52 percent disapproving. It is one of his lowest net approval scores in recent weeks. The most recent Marquette University survey shows Trump at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -10, down two points from -8 in May. It is the lowest rating Marquette has recorded for Trump during his second term. Similarly, Navigator Research found his approval at 42 percent, with 54 percent disapproving, marking a net disapproval rating of +12—a four-point drop from June and also his worst rating from Navigator since returning to office. More dramatic declines appear in Gallup's latest polling, which shows Trump with just 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval—a net rating of -21, down from -17 last month. The Bullfinch Group also reports weakening support, with Trump now at 41 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -14, down slightly from -13 in June.

How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections

Texas Legislature WASHINGTON (AP) — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: When does redistricting normally happen? Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. Is midcycle redistricting allowed? By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Is Texas' effort unprecedented? Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. What do the courts say about gerrymandering? In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is ' highly partisan by any measure. ' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Could other states follow suit? Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store