Wyoming general election, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026
Proposition 1, explained
A plain-English, nonpartisan guide to the homeowner property tax initiative: what it does, the strongest case on each side, and what happens either way.
Statewide initiative
Proposition No. 1
Exempts half the assessed value of a qualifying owner-occupied home, but not its land, from property tax.
What you're voting on
Prop 1 would exempt half the assessed value of a qualifying homeowner's primary house (the structure, not the land) from property tax. It is a regular law proposed by citizens, not a constitutional amendment.
- Who gets it: homeowners who have lived in Wyoming at least a year and in the home at least six months of the prior year. No income limit, age requirement or cap on home value.
- Who doesn't: renters, second homes, rental properties and most business property.
- How big: the Legislature's budget office projects about $109.4 million less property tax in the first year. The estimate printed on the ballot, figured differently, is $92.6 million in fiscal 2028.
- When: the earliest affected tax year is 2027.
Where property tax goes: about 69% to K-12 schools, 17% to counties, 8% to special districts (fire, hospital, senior services and others), 4% to community colleges where a county has one, and 2% to cities and towns.
How it fits with existing relief: The Department of Revenue and the Legislature's budget office (August 2026) say current law lets Prop 1 stack with the 25% homeowner exemption; a bill to repeal the 25% exemption if Prop 1 passed was discussed but did not pass. Prop 1 can't be combined with the 50% exemption for long-time owners 65 and older, which covers home and land, so AARP warns some of those owners could pay more if they switch.
Heads up: leaving it blank counts as a No. An initiative needs a majority of all ballots cast in the election, not just of votes on the question.
Five measures to judge it by
For each row, pick the column you agree with more. Weigh the rows that matter most to you rather than just counting them; one dealbreaker can outweigh the rest.
| What matters most to you | Points YES if you believe… | Points NO if you believe… |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Your tax bill | Homeowner property taxes rose too fast, and the relief passed in 2024 and 2025 (a 4% cap and a 25% exemption) isn't enough | The relief already passed is enough, or overall property tax growth has roughly tracked inflation |
| 2. Local services | Local governments have enough reserves and waste to absorb a smaller budget | Fire districts, Sheridan College and small special districts, which run mostly on property tax with thin reserves, would have to cut |
| 3. Trust in the next Legislature | Lawmakers will cover the gap from state savings or fix rough edges by amendment | A cut should come with a funding plan; backfill bills have failed before, and nothing requires lawmakers to act |
| 4. Fairness | Every primary homeowner deserves the same 50% relief, including retirees on fixed incomes | Savings flow mostly to the priciest homes (no value cap), and renters and businesses get nothing |
| 5. State income tax | State savings can cover any gap, and an income tax would never pass a Republican Legislature | Even a small long-term rise in the odds of an income tax is unacceptable; halving home property tax weakens the constitutional credit that has kept one impractical |
The case for (as supporters make it)
- Homeowners got hit hard. Wyoming's residential assessed values rose about 73% from 2019 to 2024, from $5.86 billion to $10.15 billion, squeezing retirees and others on fixed incomes.
- Government has the money. The State Treasurer manages about $35.3 billion in investments, and Sheridan County alone holds about $16 million in general fund reserves; supporters say governments can absorb the cut or cover it from savings.
- It's a priority problem, not a revenue problem. A smaller budget forces local governments to cut waste before essentials.
- Property tax taxes an unrealized gain. Homeowners pay more as values rise even though they haven't sold, like renting your home from the government.
- Voters, not legislators, should decide. The Legislature's 2025 bill started as a 50% cut and was scaled back to 25%; this is the first citizen initiative on the ballot in 30 years, and lawmakers still get a full session before it takes effect.
- The cut is smaller and better aimed than critics say. One supporter puts the cut at 1.8% of total taxes, another at about 4% of local government revenue. It also excludes second homes, vacation properties and out-of-state speculators.
The case against (as opponents make it)
- There's no plan to replace the money. Roughly $109–125 million a year disappears, and nothing requires the Legislature to fill the gap; backfill bills have failed before. Much of the state's $35 billion sits in permanent funds whose principal the Constitution puts off-limits.
- It hits services that live on property tax. Fire districts get almost all their money from property tax, and Sheridan College expects to lose about $1.3 million, or 6% of its budget. Sheridan County is hit harder than mineral counties because homes make up about 69% of its taxable value.
- The benefits are lopsided. With no cap on home value, Teton County gets about 24.7% of the statewide savings with about 4% of the population. Renters and businesses get nothing, and a Department of Revenue analysis suggests it may shift the tax burden toward lower-income residents.
- Relief already exists. Homeowners already have a 25% exemption on the first $1 million, a 50% exemption for long-time owners 65 and older, a 4% cap on annual increases and a refund program.
- It could make a state income tax more workable. Wyoming's Constitution credits property and sales taxes against any income tax; halving home property tax shrinks that credit, which three former and current lawmakers with finance backgrounds say makes taxing top earners more attractive.
- It shifts control from local voters to Cheyenne. Gov. Gordon argues property tax lets local citizens decide which services to fund; if the state backfills the gap, counties and districts depend on legislators instead. Similar cuts in other states moved control to the state capital (see other states).
How solid is each claim?
Facts on both sides mostly check out; the big predictions are uncertain. The color shows how solid each claim is; the odds are our rough judgment, not data.
- Verified: checked against official data or the ballot text
- Depends: true, but depends on framing or future choices
- Speculative: a prediction the evidence doesn't support well
- Values call: no data can settle it
| Claim and basis | Rating | Rough odds |
|---|---|---|
| The case for | ||
| 1. Homeowners got hit hardAssessed values rose about 73% 2019–24; relief cut them in 2025 | Verified | Not a forecast |
| 2. Government has the moneyFigures are real; much state money is locked, and reserves are one-time | Depends | Not a forecast |
| 3. Cuts will hit waste before servicesElsewhere, cuts landed mostly on services; backers dispute that | Speculative | ~3 in 10cuts hit waste first |
| 4. Property tax taxes an unrealized gainAccurate description; whether that is unfair is a values call | Values call | Not a forecast |
| 5. Voters, not legislators, should decideBill history verified; who should decide is a values call | Values call | Not a forecast |
| 6. The cut is small and well aimedExcludes second homes (ballot text); bigger hit in home-heavy counties | Depends | Not a forecast |
| The case against | ||
| 1. No plan to replace the moneyTrue on its face; 2025 relief was not backfilled for local governments | Verified | ~2 in 10full local backfill |
| 2. Hits services that live on property taxFire districts rely on it; amounts are agencies' own estimates | Depends | ~7 in 10some local cuts |
| 3. The benefits are lopsidedState data: Teton gets 24.7% of savings with 4% of residents | Verified | Not a forecast |
| 4. Relief already existsPrograms verified; whether they are enough is a values call | Verified | Not a forecast |
| 5. Could make a state income tax workableCredit math is real (three experts agree); politics strongly against it | Depends | 1 in 10 or lessincome tax within 10 years |
| 6. Shifts control to CheyenneStrong pattern elsewhere; happens mainly if the state backfills | Depends | ~3 in 10real shift to Cheyenne |
The odds are our rough judgment from the evidence in this guide, not polling or modeling. Note the asymmetry: the Yes case rests more on values questions, which no grid can score, and the No case more on present facts plus predictions that may not come true. More green on one side doesn't mean that side is right.
Disagree with a rating? Tell us whyLessons from other states
No state has tried exactly this, but similar property tax cuts show a consistent pattern: the relief lasts, a state surplus covers the gap only briefly, control moves to the state capital, and rural districts with little business property get squeezed.
- California Prop 13 (1978): cut property tax rates 55%; the state's surplus bailed out local governments for about two years, and the state took over decisions that had been local.
- Oregon Measure 5 (1990): required the state to replace lost school money but not other local revenue; the state's share of school funding rose from 28.6% to 70.6%, and local control of school budgets effectively ended.
- Massachusetts Prop 2½ (1980): a regular law like Prop 1; early state aid prevented major service cuts, but towns became dependent on that aid and on voter overrides.
- Colorado's Gallagher Amendment (1982): about $35 billion in homeowner relief over four decades, but rural fire and hospital districts, which got no state backfill, were starved; voters repealed it in 2020, 58% to 42%.
- Michigan Proposal A (1994): paired a one-third property tax cut with a sales tax increase from 4% to 6%; voters approved it 69–31.
- North Dakota Measure 4 (2024): would have abolished property tax with state replacement and no funding plan; voters rejected it 63–37 after fire chiefs, sheriffs, unions and the state chamber opposed it.
Were any of them repealed?
Only one was repealed outright, and it was the one lawmakers put on the ballot. Every citizen initiative here that passed is still in force.
| Measure | Today | What changed afterward |
|---|---|---|
| California Prop 13 (1978) | Still in force | In 2020 voters trimmed its inheritance break (Prop 19) and narrowly rejected taxing commercial property at market value (Prop 15) |
| Oregon Measure 5 (1990) | Still in force | In 1997 voters added an even stricter limit (Measure 50) |
| Massachusetts Prop 2½ (1980) | Still in force | Towns can ask their own voters to override the cap |
| Colorado Gallagher Amendment (1982) | Repealed | Lawmakers put repeal on the 2020 ballot; it passed 58% to 42% |
| Michigan Proposal A (1994) | Still in force | Its cap on taxable value is still in use |
| North Dakota Measure 4 (2024) | Rejected by voters | Lawmakers passed a $473 million relief package anyway |
Prop 1 differs in one way: it's an ordinary law, so the Legislature can amend it at any time, though it can't repeal it for two years.
Supporters of those measures point to the lasting savings: Oregon property taxes would be about 40% higher today without Measure 5, and Michigan cut homeowners' property taxes 42%. Wyoming's version is milder than most: a smaller cut, a regular law the Legislature can amend, schools already state-funded, large reserves and no income tax.
Spot a problem? Report a correction for this sectionWho's for it and who's against it
Support comes mainly from the sponsors, the state Republican Party and the Freedom Caucus; opposition is a broad mix of public-service groups, business and agriculture groups, and officials from both parties. The No campaign has nearly $1 million, including $405,000 from the National Education Association; the Yes sponsors had raised and spent under $5,000 as of late September, and the state GOP has pledged financial support without a reported amount.
| Who | Stand | Main stated reason |
|---|---|---|
| BCR Initiatives (Brent Bien, Rich Weber, Cheryl Aguiar) | For | Sponsors; homeowners need permanent relief after values spiked |
| Wyoming Republican Party | For | Homeowners deserve durable relief; pledged money and marketing |
| Wyoming Freedom Caucus | For | The state has plenty of money to cover the gap |
| Wyoming Education Association (teachers) | Against | Cuts to schools and local services |
| Wyoming Hospital Association | Against | Would gut county emergency services |
| Wyoming Association of Community College Trustees (all colleges) | Against | Colleges' most stable local funding |
| Wyoming Taxpayers Association | Against | Existing relief is working; "reform, don't break" |
| Wyoming REALTORS | Against | Support relief, but worried about local services |
| Wyoming County Commissioners Association | Against | Earlier relief already brought county revenue down |
| Wyoming Business Alliance | Against | Expects new fees or taxes on businesses |
| Wyoming Stock Growers Association | Against | Expects other taxes on ranchers to rise |
| Gov. Gordon (R), nominee Barlow (R), Harshman (R), Sen. Case (R), ex-Gov. Freudenthal (D) | Against | No plan to replace the money; local control |
| Sheridan County Chamber of Commerce | No public position found | Hosts candidate forums and a neutral voter guide |
Opponents fall into two camps: groups funded by property tax, and business and ranch groups that expect the cost to shift onto them. Supporters argue the first camp is protecting its own budgets; opponents answer that those groups deliver the services that would be cut.
Where elected officials stand
- Gov. Mark Gordon (R): against.
- Superintendent Megan Degenfelder (R): said yes at a July primary forum; no statement found since she lost the primary.
- Secretary of State Chuck Gray (R): no explicit position found; praised the initiative process when certifying it.
- Treasurer Curt Meier (R) and Auditor Kristi Racines (R): no position found.
- U.S. Sens. John Barrasso (R) and Cynthia Lummis (R): no position found.
- U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R): calls property tax a state issue; no position.
- Governor candidates: Eric Barlow (R) against; Rebecca Bextel (Constitution) opposes property taxes altogether; no clear position found from Kenneth Casner (D).
- Superintendent candidates: Steve Harshman (R) and his Democratic opponent both against.
Policy groups and opinion pieces
We found no national think tank endorsing Prop 1; the only national analysis is critical.
- Tax Foundation (nonpartisan tax research group that generally favors low, broad-based taxes): critical. It calls Prop 1 "the wrong way to do tax policy" and says it would push local governments toward worse taxes and service cuts.
- Cato Institute: no Wyoming-specific position. Its tax policy director called property-tax anger "legitimate" in a national story on 2026 ballot measures.
- Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, Wyoming Liberty Group: no position found.
- AARP Wyoming: urges older homeowners to be cautious, warning some could pay more.
In Wyoming papers, opinion pieces for Prop 1 come from columnists Fred Harrison and Jonathan Lange, columnist Dave Simpson (who argues opponents' warnings are overblown) and several letter writers. Pieces against come from Gov. Gordon, former Gov. Dave Freudenthal, columnist Gail Symons, a guest column by Lenhart, the Wyoming Taxpayers Association and AARP.
Missing someone, or got a stance wrong? Report a correction for this sectionIf you're not in Sheridan County
This guide's local-services numbers are Sheridan's, and Sheridan is near the extreme: homes make up about 69% of its taxable value and minerals almost none. Elsewhere the local hit is usually smaller, but the state-level points (school backfill, income tax, control shifting to Cheyenne, the new Legislature, how the exemptions stack) apply everywhere.
| County type | Examples (homes' share of taxable value) | What changes |
|---|---|---|
| Home-heavy | Sheridan (69%), Albany (about 61%), Park (49–56%), Lincoln (about 47%) | Local services feel the cut most |
| Mixed | Fremont, Natrona, Platte, Laramie, Johnson, Big Horn, Goshen (about 30–45%) | Smaller but real hit; property-tax-only districts like fire and senior services still feel it |
| Mineral-dominated | Converse (4%), Sublette (5%), Campbell (6%), Niobrara (9%), Sweetwater (10%), Carbon (19%) | Local budgets barely change |
| Teton | Share not found | Gets about 25% of statewide savings ($1,162 per person vs. $193 statewide) and has room to raise its county levy |
State estimates of the yearly revenue cut: Teton $27.05 million, Laramie $16.86 million, Natrona $9.86 million, Sheridan $5.74 million, Johnson $1.67 million. Shares mix 2024 and 2025 data; Uinta, Washakie and Weston weren't available.
Know your county's numbers? Send them our wayIf it fails
A No vote keeps today's relief in place and leaves any further changes to the Legislature.
- Current relief stays. The 25% homeowner exemption has no sunset; the 50% exemption for long-time owners 65 and older is now permanent, capped at the first $3 million; the 4% cap on yearly increases stays; the refund program continues if the Legislature funds it.
- Bills stay roughly where they are. A home's taxable value can rise no more than 4% a year, though local mill levies can still change.
- The same idea can't return by petition until about 2031. Wyoming bars an initiative substantially the same as one defeated within five years; the Legislature could still pass its own version anytime.
- Bigger changes have stalled. In 2026, bills to eliminate residential property tax with a sales tax increase, tax homes on purchase price, or cut the tax rate on homes didn't pass; only the over-65 exemption extension did.
- Tools sit unused. Lawmakers haven't used the separate tax class for homes that voters approved in 2024, and budget staff have studied a 2% real estate transfer tax.
- A close loss could still push lawmakers. Because blank ballots count as No, Prop 1 can fail even with more Yes than No votes, as an initiative did in 1996.
- North Dakota shows a loss can still bring relief. After voters rejected Measure 4 in 2024, lawmakers passed a $473 million package, including a credit of up to $1,600 per household that eliminated property taxes for about 50,000 households; some counties then cut pay raises and delayed projects.
Our read: more relief from the new Legislature is possible, but likely in smaller steps.
Spot a problem? Report a correction for this sectionTrue either way
- Leaving it blank counts as a No. An initiative needs a majority of all ballots cast in the election, not just of votes on the question.
- It isn't permanent. The Legislature can amend it at any time by majority vote, but can't repeal it for two years.
- Schools are protected; others aren't. The state must make up lost school property tax by law. Counties, cities, fire districts, community colleges and other special districts get no automatic backfill.
- Homeowners must sign up. A sworn claim goes to the county assessor by the fourth Monday in May, with eligibility confirmed every year.
- Don't confuse it with local questions. In Sheridan County, the ballot also asks whether to continue the 1% countywide sales tax; that's a separate vote.
- A new Legislature handles the aftermath. The Freedom Caucus lost its House majority in August, and 29 of 62 House members will be new in January.