Senator Sue Peterson (R-13/Sioux Falls) submitted four proposals (M, N, O, and P) to the Comprehensive Property Tax Task Force, and the committee recommended all four for further consideration.
Alas, Senator Peterson’s proposals for property tax relief don’t dig into the root problems of coming up with good formulas for taxing property or identifying more progressive sources of essential government revenue. Peterson just wants to make it easier for her and her fellow radical rightwingers to use local ballot measures to block funding for public schools:
- Proposal M: Subject to certain conditions, requires that all school district excess tax levies (opt outs) must be approved by an election; applies to school general fund opt outs and capital outlay opt outs.
- Proposal N: Decreases the required petition to refer a school district excess tax levy (opt out) to a vote from 5% of the registered voters in the district to 5% of all voters who voted in the most recent special election of the district; increases the days provided to gather signatures from 20 to 40.
- Proposal O: Requires that all capital outlay certificates issued by a school district must be approved by an election.
- Proposal P: Changes the vote requirement for excess tax levy (opt out) elections from a simple majority to 60% [Comprehensive Property Tax Task Force, “Proposals for Committee Consideration,” South Dakota Legislature, posted 2025.10.22, pp. 3–4; edited and formatted by CAH/DFP].
I want to believe that Senator Peterson, in seeking to subject more school board fiscal decisions to public votes, shares my belief in democracy, my belief that we do well to give citizens more opportunities to vote directly on more issues. But I suspect that with Proposals M and O, she isn’t hoping to get everyone out to vote; she just wants a chance to mobilize her network of radical conservative activists to shout “Taxes?! Aagghh!” and get out the vote of the antisocial Trumpists among us. Proposal P shows Senator Peterson also doesn’t believe in majority rule; rather than fairly winning the argument that public schools are a waste of tax dollars, she just wants to make it easier for a minority of cranks to prevent public schools from getting the funds that a majority recognize the schools need.
(Hey, Sue! You only got 58% of the District 23 vote in 2024; should your opponent Ali Horsted be Senator instead?)
Senator Peterson shows some democratic schizophrenia with Proposal N, which would lower the signature requirements to refer an opt-out to a vote and give petitioners more time to get those fewer signatures. I’m all for making it easier for citizens to put measures on the ballot. But during this year’s Legislative Session, Senator Peterson voted for (unconstitutionally) reducing the time citizens have to circulate initiative petitions. Senator Peterson also voted for every other measure that reached her that sought to make it harder for citizens put measures on the ballot (HB 1169, HB 1256, SB 92, SB 106). So Senator Peterson isn’t fighting for direct democracy in general; she just wants to make it easier for people who share her conservative views to monkeywrench funding for public schools.
Executive Board next meets on November 19. I will watch to see which Senator Peterson’s anti-education wolves in democratic sheep’s clothing pass muster for introduction as bills in January.
Well, she’s run out of gender issues, where else can she go. She sponsored HB 1061 so, If your kid gets the clap you can find out for sure. The kid now has to wait to deal with any sexual health issue until their 18 if they want to keep it secret. What could go wrong with that? It was aimed at LGBTQ kids but it has other effects.
Life ain’t easy for a maga girl named Sue.
A little history is required. “Opt outs” weren’t a thing before the change in the school funding formula under Gov. Janklow. This happened in the mid-1990s. The change in the funding scheme throttled local control over school funding, placing the general fund taxes under the control of the state. Local increases in school funding could only happen at the rate of inflation.
Janklow promised increased state funding in return for this control in order to deliver property tax reductions through the state funding of education. If there was a need for increased local funding, districts could “opt out” of the state restrictions Of course, over the years the “increased state funding” that was promised did not materialize most year. The initial problem was that the state baselines were never based on educational need as it changed through the years.
Opt outs can be petitioned at present, although the timeline for petitioning is a bit squished, and I think unfair.