A political action committee tied to a statewide real estate group has spent half a million dollars since late September backing a constitutional amendment on November’s ballot aimed at property tax reform — an extraordinary amount of money for Wyoming elections in a short period of time.
Affiliated with Wyoming Realtors, the 4 Wyoming PAC has spent about $544,000 on advertising, according to a campaign finance report filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State’s office this week.
In the wake of surging property taxes in much of the state, lawmakers set the constitutional amendment into motion in 2023. As is, the Wyoming Constitution groups residential property in the same tax class as commercial and agricultural properties. That’s largely prevented legislators from making isolated changes to how homes are taxed.
If voters adopt the measure, the constitution would be amended to separate residential property into a distinct tax class, thereby creating a fourth tier and making it easier for lawmakers to address the issue.
The opportunity is a long time coming, Laurie Urbigkit with the association told WyoFile.
“Wyoming Realtors have had a long-standing position that we believe there should have been a fourth tier [in the Constitution],” Urbigkit said. “This is the first time we’ve ever gotten any traction with that.”
“We believe in home ownership, and the homeowners of Wyoming do not really have an organization that represents them, so we feel that it’s our responsibility,” Urbigkit said. “So, yeah, we took it on”
As legislation, the measure received the requisite two-thirds support from lawmakers to put it on the ballot, but there’s been little to no formalized campaigning by politicians either for or against the amendment since then.
Legislators who have vocalized support via the press or on social media include some unlikely bedfellows. While some prominent members of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus have come out against the amendment — including some who supported it as a bill — over concerns that it could lead to increased taxes, Rep. Mike Yin (D-Jackson) and outgoing Sen. Anthony Bouchard (R-Cheyenne) have both been vocal in their support of the amendment.
“Having a separate tax class on ‘owner-occupied residential property’ is exactly how the Legislature can get inflated taxes under control,” Bouchard wrote on his Facebook page.
Far and away, Wyoming Realtors with its affiliated PAC is the most organized and well-funded effort to weigh in on the measure.
To be adopted, the amendment will need a majority of the total ballots cast in the general election.
Contributions and expenditures
Wyoming Realtors formed a PAC several decades ago, but it was created in such a way to only accept contributions from realtors who live and work in Wyoming, Urbigkit said.
“We set up a separate PAC so we could get money from anybody else that wanted to chime, in” Urbigkit said. “And we did raise quite a bit of money just from individuals.”
The PAC’s primary election campaign finance report shows that 27 individuals gave about $15,300. Most were listed as donors from Teton County, where property values have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the country.
“The majority of our funding is through the Wyoming Realtors,” Urbigkit said, referencing a decision by the organization’s board of directors “to go all in on this.”
Altogether, the association contributed about $544,000 to the PAC, according to the general election finance report.
For context, the most expensive race in Wyoming this year — excluding federal races — has been Darin Smith, who spent about $111,000 in Senate District 6. In 2022, Gov. Mark Gordon had the most expensive campaign, spending about $903,000 on his reelection bid.
With the exception of a $45 banking fee, the PAC’s spending has been entirely on advertising, including $16,000 to Cowboy State Daily and $269,900 to Arena LLC, a Utah-based advertising agency.
“Comparing your home to a luxury resort is like comparing apples to oranges… So why are they being taxed the same?” a digital ad texted to voters from the PAC reads.
“In Wyoming, seniors on fixed incomes pay the same property tax rate as mega corporations,” the ad reads. “Amendment A changes that, and allows our homes to be taxed at a lower, fairer rate than commercial properties. Vote YES on Amendment A!”
While opposition to the amendment may not be as prominent, the odds of the measure passing might be closer to a coin flip, if historical trends are any indication.
Twenty-two constitutional amendments have appeared on the ballot in Wyoming since 2000, according to secretary of state records. Voters approved 13 of those, including one in 2012 guaranteeing citizens the right to make their own health care decisions, which is now at the center of ongoing litigation involving Wyoming’s abortion bans.
Early voting is underway in Wyoming. The election is Nov. 5.
Correction: This story has been updated to correct what other property is grouped with residential in the Wyoming Constitution. —Ed.
I don’t trust our legislators, so I voted no.
There is a problem for sure,however, the way to solve the problem is meaningful tax reform. Tax reform will be hugh problem as long as WY remains wedded to mineral extraction that is the back bone of taxation.
I’ve lived in WY for 33 years and taxes have never been a big issue until recently. The drivers are clear but the solution is not because the future economy is not well defined.
Solving today’s problem by a constitutional change is not tax reform its a band aid. Once tinkering with the constitution starts it won’t end. That can be a slippery slope.
It does sound suspicious, so if it passes and the home owners taxes go up, can we tar and feather the folks that pushed it on the good people of Wyoming?
It would seem that another possibility for this amendment would be the ability to tax homeowners while allowing campaign contributors, who are often businesses, reduced taxes. Personally, I don’t trust the Wyoming Freedom Caucus or the Realtor Groups. In addition the mailing I received on this, from the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, was vague and appeared to deliberately withhold pertinent information. This only increased my suspicions. This other issue is, under the current system, I assume the mil levi can be changed to accommodate the taxes.
Under Wyoming law, if a voter does not vote either yes or no on a constitutional amendment it counts as a no vote. In 1970, the majority of voters who actually voted on a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 19 voted “yes”. But those votes were not a majority of all voters who cast a ballot and thus the amendment failed. On behalf of some citizens age 19 and 20 I filed a mandamus action to get the Wyoming Supreme Court to reject this anti-democratic interpretation, but the Court did not even allow an oral argument on the issue. Many years before, Idaho’s Supreme Court had rejected that interpretation of similar language in Idaho’s Constitution.
If I had any trust at all in our state legislature, I might support the constitutional amendment. I don’t, nor do I expect real estate agent to do anything but look out for themselves.
It sounds like not only “luxury resorts” but also all renter-occupied housing would be split from owner-occupied residences and taxed at a higher “mega corporation” rate. A broad history tax incidence tells us that most if not all of a property tax increase on rentals would be passed directly on to tenants in increased rents.
Thank you WyoFile. I voted no in part because it was impossible to find any information about who funded these expensive mailings. They should have been more forthcoming about their identity. In these confusing times of pick-and-choose news, we all need to ask, who wants my money, my attention, my vote and why?