Testimony: Iowa lawmakers should reject anti-democratic SJR 11

Common Good Iowa policy advocate Kylie Spies spoke in a House subcommittee and asked lawmakers to reject SJR 11, which calls for a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would derail our state’s ability to meet Iowans' needs. It would require personal or corporate income tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds vote in each house. Here are her prepared comments: 

We are opposed to this bill for three reasons:

1. It locks in bad fiscal policy.

The state is facing consecutive $1 billion-plus shortfalls. Our schools are underfunded by than a billion dollars relative to inflation this decade. The global economy is teetering — in March, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency offered 10 economic indicators as reasons for its conservative revenue estimates, and Iowa’s economy is lagging relative to other states. Credit agencies tend to not look favorably on measures that reduce states’ flexibility to raise revenues when they need to.

Iowa is simply not in a position to take revenue options off the table, and this bill makes it far easier to create a new tax break than to weed out an underperforming one.

2. It’s undemocratic.

The bill allows as few as 17 elected officials to block bipartisan tax reform. In doing so, it takes away the power and representation of Iowans who sent their representatives here to get something done.

It’s an artificially high bar you don’t have to clear anywhere else: not to be elected to this body, not to pass tax cuts, not to pass this bill here or to get voter approval in November.

3. It’s a proven failure.

There’s no evidence that this policy will improve business climate, economy or quality of life. It won’t keep young people here or attract new ones. It’s been tried.

Washington, Oklahoma and Arizona enacted similar requirements in good times and are all locked into budget cut spirals despite bipartisan efforts. Kansas is an infamous case. Colorado has suffered the consequence of its TABOR law for so long that it has developed complex alternatives via voter referenda to keep schools and other services afloat.

Oklahoma House Speaker Harold Wright expressed frustration in 2018, years into that state’s supermajority requirement, that “it has been impossible to pass necessary revenue measures to provide for adequate core services in Oklahoma: roads and bridges, public safety, education, public health and corrections.”

Such requirements have become unpopular enough that no state has passed one since Wisconsin in 2011.

Not advancing this amendment is NOT a vote to raise taxes. It’s a choice to allow your successors all the same tools of governance that you have today. With the MCO tax, you’ve already shown this session that you understand the need to be flexible on taxation. We are asking you to allow future lawmakers that same freedom.

We ask you not to move this bill forward. Thank you.