As if your TV set were not inundated by enough political ads these days, you can expect a whole other set of them soon.
The new load, probably coming your way after Labor Day, will try to persuade you to vote in November to allow a minority of Iowa legislators to prevent any increase in state personal or corporate income taxes, no matter how desperately it might be needed.
The referendum is on a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would require a two-thirds majority of each House of the Legislature to increase state income taxes.
The amendment proposal passed in the 2023-24 and 2025-26 legislative sessions in exactly the same form each time. That qualifies it to go before us voters this November, for whether we want to give 34 Iowa Representatives (out of 100) or 17 Iowa Senators (out of 50) the awesome power to deep-six any boost in state personal or corporate income tax rates.
The proposed amendment was passed in the last two legislative sessions along party lines: Republicans for it, Democrats against it. It’s been the Holy Grail for the Iowans for Tax Relief lobbying organization for decades.
A few facts about the situation to chew on before November:
1) The amendment itself needs only a simple majority of Iowa voters for adoption in the referendum, even though it’s requiring a two-thirds majority in each House in order to increase income taxes.
2) The amendment calls for the two-thirds majority only for state income taxes. Legislators should feel free to increase state sales or property taxes by the current simple majority. Translation: that would give a break to wealthier Iowans while potentially adding to the cost of goods and services and/or another load on property costs for most of us.
3) By contrast, it takes only a simple majority in the U.S. House to impeach a federal official. It takes only a simple majority in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate to declare war. And only a simple majority in each House of Congress is needed to raise federal taxes. But Republicans in the Iowa Legislature believe that to raise state income tax rates should require a two-thirds favorable vote in each of the two legislative houses.
4) To REDUCE Iowa state income taxes would still require just a simple majority in the Legislature, not the two-thirds supermajority that INCREASING those tax rates would need.
5) Even if the Iowa House of Representatives voted 100 to 0 to increase income tax rates, a one-third minority of Iowa Senators—just 17 of them—could block the increase. Both Houses would have to approve the increase by a two-thirds vote.
6) An amendment to the Iowa Constitution does not require the Governor’s signature, nor can the Governor veto it. It becomes law simply through approval by the voters in a referendum.
7) Back in 1999, in a similar situation, Iowa voters narrowly rejected a GOP-backed constitutional amendment that would have required a three-fifths favorable vote (60 percent) of all legislators to increase income or sales taxes or to establish a new state tax. This time the Republican lawmakers raised the ante (66 2/3 percent), but narrowed it to income taxes only.
8) The condition of the economy, both state and federal, goes up and down over time. Iowa’s government is now living off its stash in the state’s Taxpayer Relief Fund that has accumulated over the past several years. Iowa’s $1.2 billion general fund deficit in the current 2026-27 fiscal year will draw the Taxpayer Relief Fund from $4 billion down to $2.7 billion by the end of this fiscal year.
The state’s Republican leaders say they planned for that drawdown when they started reducing state income taxes a few years ago. Their plan is for the tax cuts to revive the state’s economy soon enough to prevent the need for a tax rate increase in the next few years.
But if they’re wrong, and the proposed constitutional amendment were to be approved this November, the state couldn’t look to restore some or all of the recent income tax cuts by a simple majority vote. Options would be limited: (1) Cut expenditures significantly, such as education and/or health expenses, or (2) increase sales and/or property taxes. Meanwhile inflation continues steadily to increase costs for government as it does for all Iowans.
What would be the likelihood that at least 67 Iowa House members and 34 Senators could be found to restore some income tax rates that have already been cut, and that could yet be cut some more in the near future? My guess: not much.
Iowa columnist Ed Tibbetts, in his excellent essay earlier this month (it’s online), noted that Iowans for Tax Relief is touting a poll it took in June which purports to show that Iowa’s likely voters would favor the proposed amendment by 74 percent.
But what the lobbying group doesn’t say in its publicity blitz is that its poll asked voters if they would oppose ANY tax increase, not specifically just the income tax limitation in the proposed amendment. That skews the poll results big time. We need to see poll results just on the amendment itself, after voters have a chance to learn about what it would do.
Iowa individuals and organizations who believe in fairness and democracy need to roll out a campaign that counterbalances the well-heeled Iowans for Tax Relief juggernaut. Otherwise we’re likely looking at sales and/or property tax increases somewhere down the line, and another break for higher-income Iowans who are already benefiting from recent income tax cuts.
This proposed amendment is nothing more than transferring the tax burden from wealthy Iowans to the poor. With billion dollar state deficits the past two years, there’s no question the state will need to increase revenue in the near future. They will most likely do so by raising the sales tax and/or fuel tax.
Always appreciate your thorough explanations.