On November 5, Wyoming voters will decide on Constitutional Amendment A, a proposed change to the state constitution that would allow the legislature to separate residential property into its own tax classification, USA Today reports.
This amendment would give lawmakers more flexibility to offer property tax relief by placing owner-occupied residences in their own subclass, separate from agricultural and commercial property.
The amendment aims to address rising property values, which have driven up living costs across Wyoming. Wenlin Liu, Administrator at the Wyoming Economic Analysis Division, noted that housing costs have accounted for nearly half of all cost-of-living increases in the state between 2017 and 2023. By reclassifying residential property, Liu says, lawmakers could adjust taxes on homeowners without impacting tax rates on agriculture or commercial properties.
If passed, Amendment A would grant the legislature a new tool to support Wyoming homeowners facing higher property taxes. State Rep. Liz Storer, D-Jackson, backs the measure, describing it as a necessary first step to relieve pressure on homeowners, particularly in high-value areas like Jackson, where property values are among the highest in the country. According to Realtor.com, Jackson’s median home price is $3.1 million, making property taxes a substantial burden for local residents.
Storer explains that the amendment offers long-term potential for thoughtful, constitutional tax reforms, giving legislators the ability to adjust tax burdens on owner-occupied homes. Wyoming’s current tax revenue from property taxes overwhelmingly supports education and local government, not the state, and altering residential property taxes would directly impact local funds rather than the state budget. If this revenue decreases, localities would need to explore other funding sources.
However, not all lawmakers are equally enthusiastic. Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne, who initially supported putting Amendment A on the ballot, has since raised concerns. He argues that the amendment may give the legislature too much power to change taxes, potentially creating unintended burdens for small landlords. Singh advises voters to carefully weigh whether they believe the legislature should have this additional tool.
“If you trust the legislature to tax you properly, then vote yes… But if you’re skeptical, consider the risks of granting this added authority,” he says.
Even if voters pass Amendment A, Liu cautions that legislative action is not guaranteed. The amendment would only create the legal pathway; any specific relief measures would still require lawmakers’ approval.
“They may act on it, or they may not,” Liu explains.
While the amendment offers a new approach for easing homeowners’ tax burdens, the broader financial implications—particularly for education funding and local government budgets—will need to be addressed by future legislative sessions.