Senate backs growth caps on property assessments
Senators on Tuesday approved rolling owner-occupied assessments back to 2020 levels and capping their annual growth at 3%. The 35-0 vote brought tears to the eyes of Republican Sen. Amber Hulse, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 191.
A bit later, the vote was 30-5 for an amended Senate Bill 216, a product from Gov. Larry Rhoden and a task force of 10 legislators. It calls for capping growth of a county's total owner-occupied assessments at 3% annually for taxes payable in 2027 through 2031.
SB 216 also sets a 2% annual growth cap on tax revenue payable, and increases eligibility for property assessment freezes to $55,000 for single-member households and $65,000 for multi-member households.
The two bills now move to the House of Representatives for further action.
'We need short-term relief and long-term reform,' said Republican Sen. Sue Peterson, who was on the task force.
So was Republican Sen. Taffy Howard, who said South Dakota's average property-tax rate was 1.28% while nationally it was 0.91%. 'So we're well above the national average,' she said.
Howard said the two bills 'complement each other very nicely.'
'I think we have some very good ideas here,' she said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
Trump narrows Fed chair candidates to four, excluding Treasury Secretary Bessent
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he's whittled down his list of potential Federal Reserve chair candidates to four as he considers a successor to Jerome Powell — a choice that could reset the path of the U.S. economy. Asked on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' for a future replacement to Powell, Trump named Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, and Kevin Warsh, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. 'I think Kevin and Kevin, both Kevins, are very good,' Trump said during an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' He said two other people were also under consideration, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is not among them. 'I love Scott, but he wants to stay where he is,' Trump said. He did not name his other two top candidates but used the opportunity to disparage Powell, whom he has dubbed 'too late' in cutting interest rates. The news that Trump plans to make a decision on the Fed chair 'soon' comes as the Republican president has been highly critical of current Powell, whose term ends in May 2026. Trump recently floated having the Fed's board of governors take full control of the U.S. central bank from Powell, whom he has relentlessly pressured to cut short-term interest rates in ways that raise questions about whether the Fed can remain free from White House politicking. Trump has openly mused about whether to remove Powell before his tenure as chair ends, but he's held off on dismissing the Fed chair after a recent Supreme Court ruling suggested he could only do so for cause rather than out of policy disagreements. The president has put pressure on Powell by claiming he mismanaged the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation project, but he's also said that he's 'highly unlikely' to fire Powell. One of the Fed's governors, Adriana Kugler, made a surprise announcement last Friday that she would be stepping away from her role. That created an opening for Trump, who called her departure 'a pleasant surprise,' to name a new Fed governor. Trump told CNBC it's 'a possibility' that his pick to replace Kugler could also be his choice to replace Powell. Here's what to know about the two known candidates: Kevin Hassett Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, has been supportive of the president's agenda — from his advocacy for income tax cuts and tariffs to his support of the recent firing of BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Hassett served in the first Trump administration as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. He has a doctoral degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and worked at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute before joining the Trump White House in 2017. As part of Hassett's farewell announcement in 2019, Trump called him a 'true friend' who did a 'great job.' Hassett became a fellow at the Hoover Institution, which is located at Stanford University. He later returned to the administration to help deal with the pandemic. On CNBC on Monday, Hassett said 'all over the U.S. government, there have been people who have been resisting Trump everywhere they can.' Kevin Warsh A former Fed governor who stepped down in 2011, Warsh is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has been supportive of cutting interest rates, a key goal of Trump's. 'The president's right to be frustrated with Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve,' Warsh said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' last month. Warsh has been increasingly critical of Powell's Federal Reserve and in July, on CNBC, called for sweeping changes on how the Fed conducts business as well as a new Treasury-Fed accord 'like we did in 1951, after another period where we built up our nation's debt and we were stuck with a central bank that was working at cross purposes with the Treasury.' He said the Fed's 'hesitancy to cut rates, I think, is actually quite a mark against them.' 'The specter of the miss they made on inflation' after the pandemic, he said, 'it has stuck with them. So one of the reasons why the president, I think, is right to be pushing the Fed publicly is we need regime change in the conduct of policy.' 'He's very highly thought of,' Trump said in June when asked directly about Warsh. ___ Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
Death row inmates challenge new Arkansas law allowing executions by nitrogen gas
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Several Arkansas death row inmates sued the state Tuesday to block a new law allowing executions by nitrogen gas, saying the measure gives prison officials unconstitutionally broad authority to decide how they should die. Ten inmates filed the lawsuit in state court challenging the law signed this year by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Supporters have promoted the law as a way to carry out executions for the first time in eight years. Arkansas has 23 people on death row. Arkansas hasn't executed an inmate since 2017, when the state put four men to death before a drug used in its lethal injection process expired. The state has been unable to purchase more lethal injection drugs since because of manufacturers' opposition to their use in executions, the attorney general's office has said. Attorneys for the inmates argue the law violates Arkansas' constitution by giving the Division of Correction authority to decide whether to use lethal injection or nitrogen gas for an execution. The law is also unclear on details surrounding the use of nitrogen gas, the suit says. 'This leaves only questions,' including how the gas would be obtained and how it would be administered, the lawsuit said. Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement that his office was aware of the lawsuit and was ready to 'vigorously defend' the new law. Under the nitrogen hypoxia execution method, an inmate is forced to breathe the gas and deprived of the oxygen needed to stay alive. Opponents say the method increases suffering, citing accounts from witnesses to Alabama executions who said inmates gasped and shook during executions. State officials say those are involuntary movements associated with oxygen deprivation. Arkansas is the fifth state to approve nitrogen gas executions. Alabama, the first state to use nitrogen gas, has carried out five executions using the method since it began last year. Louisiana staged its first in March, putting to death a man convicted of killing a woman in 1996. Two other states — Mississippi and Oklahoma — have laws allowing the method but have not used it so far. Alabama's law is being challenged in federal court. The Arkansas inmates also argue that the law cannot be applied retroactively to them, since they were sentenced to die by lethal injection. Attorneys for the inmates said the lack of details on how the state would carry out nitrogen executions raises the risk of a 'gruesome and torturous execution.' 'Arkansas juries explicitly sentenced our clients to execution by lethal injection – not gas – and the General Assembly cannot rewrite those verdicts to impose death by this very different and highly problematic method,' Heather Fraley, an attorney for the inmates, said in a statement. Arkansas' law took effect Tuesday, and Sanders in April said she had no timeline for resuming executions and wasn't in a rush.
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
STEVE HILTON: Why I'm launching a legal war against California Democrats' unconstitutional power grab
California Democrats are once again trying to rig the system, overturn elections and steal congressional seats from Republicans. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta are planning to redraw California's congressional maps in 2025 or 2026, halfway through the decade and years before the next census. This isn't about "fairness" or "democracy." It's a blatant, unconstitutional power grab designed to silence millions of voters and cement one-party rule in California. Democrats are already trying to rewrite the history of this redistricting fight, claiming it's just retaliation for Republican maps in Texas. But let's be clear: California started this. The last redistricting cycle was corrupted by partisan operatives who rigged California's so-called "independent" Citizens Redistricting Commission to deliver a gerrymandered map. Republicans received 40% of the vote for Congress in 2022 but just 17% of the seats. Now, rather than wait for the next census as required by law, Newsom and Bonta are pushing to redraw the maps mid-decade to squeeze out even more unfair representation for their party. I'm not going to let it happen. I will fight this in the courts and in the court of public opinion because California belongs to all of us, not just the Democrat elites trying to cling to power. It's obviously wrong to redraw maps without another population count. Since the last census, millions have fled California, driven out by COVID lockdowns, high taxes, and unaffordable housing. Add to that the devastation of wildfires like the 2025 Los Angeles inferno that destroyed entire communities. Where did all those people go? Gavin Newsom doesn't know and doesn't care. He wants to redraw the maps anyway. California lost a congressional seat in 2020 for the first time in our history and we've seen a further net population loss of nearly 500,000 more since then. Redistricting must reflect these realities. That's just common sense. But it's not just obviously wrong to redraw maps without a census, it's illegal. Article 21 of the California Constitution is crystal clear: redistricting happens once per decade, in the year after the national census. That was the law before voters approved the Citizens Redistricting Commission, and it was re-stated afterwards. In fact, the California Supreme Court already ruled on this exact issue. In Legislature v. Deukmejian, the Court said redistricting is a once-a-decade process, tied directly to the census. A rushed redistricting scheme, five years after the last census, would blatantly violate the state Constitution. You can't just ignore the rules when they don't benefit your party. Newsom and Bonta have an answer to that: their power-grab scheme includes a rushed "special election" to overturn Article 21 of the state constitution, seize power from the Citizens Redistricting Commission, and redraw maps to steal five congressional seats from Republicans. But here's the flaw in their plan. It's not just Article 21 of the state constitution they would be violating. In fact it's not even just California's Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law, including equal principle was reaffirmed in Reynolds v. Sims, a landmark Supreme Court case that held all legislative districts must have roughly equal populations. The federal equal protection clause is also mirrored in California's state constitution, in Article 1. Without a new census, there's no way to ensure that the equal protection standard -- that legislative districts must have roughly equal populations -- is met. Any redistricting done now would be based on guesswork, not facts. So here's what I will do. If Newsom and Bonta move forward with their illegal scheme, I will mount a two-pronged legal challenge. First, we will file a case in state court to stop the plan under California's constitution and long-standing legal precedent. At the same time, we'll take the fight to federal court, arguing that their actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. We'll use every legal tool available to stop this outrageous attempt to gerrymander California still further in Democrats' favor. For all their endless lectures on "protecting our democracy," Democrats really only care about preserving their power. The last round of redistricting in California was supposed to be nonpartisan, handled by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. But left-wing pressure groups hijacked the process, pushing vague standards like "communities of interest" to justify partisan gerrymandering. That's why Republicans have just 17% of House districts for roughly 40% of the statewide vote. Now they want to take it even further, cutting Republican congressional representation to just 7% even though millions of Californians vote Republican. That's not "democracy." That's rigging the system. If we had fair representation in California, Republicans would have an additional 12 House seats. And the Democrat "super-majority" in the state legislature -- which has enabled them to pass ultra-left extreme legislation for over a decade -- would disappear. We don't have to put up with these Democrat assaults on our democracy. I've already proposed reforms to make redistricting truly fair and nonpartisan. That includes using artificial intelligence to draw maps based on neutral criteria like compactness and city and county boundaries instead of vague standards that enable gerrymandering. I will not let Newsom and Bonta silence the voices of millions of Californians for their own partisan and personal ends. I will fight this every step of the way with action, with urgency, and with the full force of the law behind us. And when I'm governor, I will reverse the Democrat gerrymander and ensure fair representation for everyone in California. Republican Steve Hilton is a candidate for governor of California. He previously served as senior policy and strategy advisor to former U.K. prime minister David Cameron. He is a former host of "The Next Revolution" on Fox News.
