AN ACT relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and resources.
SB 59 would expand and strengthen Kentucky’s restrictions on the use of public tax dollars, public resources, and government personnel to advocate for or against ballot questions. The bill defines “resources” broadly to include appropriated funds, physical property, digital assets such as official websites and social media accounts, and employees or volunteers acting within the scope of public employment or volunteer service. It applies these limits to local, state, and federal tax dollars and expressly covers public questions on the ballot, including recall questions.
The bill also revises the state’s property-tax recall process for local governments, school districts, and certain taxing districts. It sets procedures for petition committees, county clerk review, signature thresholds, electronic signatures in some cases, election timing, and the effect of a successful petition. It preserves the ability of local taxing bodies to avoid an election by amending a levy to a lower revenue level in specified circumstances, and it addresses what happens if a final tax rate is delayed past September 15, including the possibility of second billing and shifting those costs to the affected taxing district.
SB 59 would amend KRS 65.013, KRS 48.025, and KRS 132.017 to broaden and clarify prohibitions on using public funds and public resources for ballot advocacy, while also updating the statutory framework for challenging local property tax levies. It creates a Class D felony for violations of the advocacy ban, adds civil liability and a private right of action, waives sovereign and governmental immunity for that civil claim, and imposes a 10-year ban on holding public office or other positions of public trust or profit after criminal or civil findings. It also changes procedures for tax-rate recall petitions and elections, affecting local governments, school districts, county clerks, taxpayers, and petition committees.
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support, passing both chambers and later surviving veto override votes in each chamber by substantial margins. That pattern indicates broad legislative approval of the bill’s core purpose, especially its restrictions on public spending for ballot advocacy and its changes to tax-recall procedures. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded votes show that a significant minority opposed the measure at each stage.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad prohibition on advocacy using public resources, the inclusion of digital and human resources, and the severe enforcement provisions. Critics would be expected to focus on the felony penalty, the civil cause of action, the waiver of immunity, and the 10-year disqualification from public office or employment, arguing these provisions are unusually punitive and could chill government speech or routine public information efforts. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing taxpayer-funded electioneering and ensuring neutrality in public communications about ballot measures and tax levies. The property-tax recall changes, especially petition thresholds, electronic signature rules, and second-billing consequences, may also have drawn concern from local governments and school districts because they add procedural complexity and potential administrative costs.