A 30-second ad from a political action committee supporting Republican Ty Masterson has made property taxes a centerpiece of the Kansas governor’s race, attacking Democrat Cindy Holscher over her votes on valuation limits. But the candidates’ own proposals target different parts of the tax system: Masterson would limit growth in taxable property values, while Holscher would lower the assessment rate for residential property.
Different proposals, different limits
Masterson has proposed a constitutional amendment to cap annual growth in taxable assessed property value at 3% or less. Holscher proposes reducing the residential assessment rate from 11.5% to 9%, a change that would also require a constitutional amendment, KCUR reported. The proposals are not interchangeable: a valuation limit constrains the assessed value used in the tax calculation, while a lower assessment rate changes the share of residential value that is taxable.
The ad points to Holscher’s votes against two Senate resolutions that would have capped annual increases in property appraisal values at 3%. Masterson co-sponsored and supported both measures. One passed the Senate in 2025 and the other in 2026, but neither became law, according to the Kansas City Star and Kansas Reflector.
A cap on property values would not, by itself, cap tax bills: local governments could still change tax rates, and critics have warned that limits could shift costs among taxpayers or pressure local budgets. Critics of Holscher’s assessment-rate proposal say it could shift more of the tax burden to commercial property and agricultural land. These are different potential trade-offs, not evidence that either proposal would produce a particular tax bill.
Kansas has debated both valuation and collection limits
The distinction also appeared in the 2026 legislative session. KCUR reported that lawmakers pursued a cap on how much local governments could collect in property taxes, which Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed twice, as well as a constitutional amendment to limit annual increases in home values, which failed multiple times. One approach focused on local collections; the other focused on valuations.
At a Kansas State Fair debate, Holscher argued that inadequate state support for special education leaves local governments to cover costs and contributes to property-tax pressure. A Kansas Legislature presentation estimated state aid would cover 66.4% of special-education excess costs in 2024–2025. That statewide funding estimate does not establish that a particular funding gap caused a particular property-tax increase.
The ad’s other references
The spot also invokes Holscher’s past praise for California’s economic growth. She had asked what Kansas might learn from the state’s economic development and population trends, rather than its social policies, KCUR reported. California’s Proposition 13 is a distinct property-tax comparison: it generally limits annual increases in taxable values to 2% and bases assessments on purchase price, with exceptions including ownership changes and new construction. Research summarized by the National Bureau of Economic Research describes potential effects including a lock-in incentive for homeowners and shifts in tax burdens.
The ad also revives a social-media exchange from 2023, when Holscher shared an illustration of Jesus with children and questioned why Jesus would be considered less sacred if he were not heterosexual. She later deleted the post. The exchange came during debate over an anti-drag bill that never advanced out of committee; Masterson ultimately allowed that bill to die in committee.
On school sports, Holscher voted against measures to bar transgender girls and women from competing in girls’ and women’s teams. The Legislature later overrode Kelly’s veto of House Bill 2238, which became law. The Kansas State High School Activities Association’s implementing policy says teams designated for girls “shall not be open to students of the male sex.” Holscher has more recently said she does not want boys in girls’ sports, but her public statements do not specify whether she supports transgender girls competing or what criteria she would apply.
The campaign ad puts property taxes, social-media history and school sports in a single attack. The tax proposals, however, remain distinct in both their mechanisms and the concerns raised about their effects; the Senate valuation resolutions highlighted in the spot never became law.
