Minority-rule tax amendment risks schools, safety, health

Defeating it is essential to promoting opportunity and protecting democracy in our state

July 2026 | PDF

In November, Iowa voters face an existential ballot question about our state’s financial future. They would be wise to reject a proposed constitutional amendment that would derail our state’s ability to fund the services that help make Iowa a good place to live, work and raise a family.  

The proposed amendment would require personal or corporate income tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds majority in each house — virtually locking in extreme tax cuts skewed to the wealthy that majority lawmakers put in place between 2019 and 2025. 

A rule like this is often called a “supermajority requirement.” But a better way to describe it is “minority rule.” 

In our 150-member Legislature, it would take as few as 17 members of the Senate or 34 members of the House to stop a majority from fixing our escalating budget problems and strengthening the services Iowans care about — from public schools and colleges to health care and clean-water initiatives. 

It is reckless fiscal strategy

• After slashing the income tax, our state isn’t bringing in enough revenue to sustain the services Iowans expect. When lawmakers first started pushing this amendment, their most aggressive tax cuts were not yet in effect. Now they are. State revenue has dropped by 17% since its peak, and we face $1 billion+ deficits in the current and coming fiscal years. At historic rates of revenue and spending growth, our surpluses will be gone in less than three years.1 

• Tough economic headwinds may worsen our problems. In contrast to promises of the tax-cut proponents, Iowa’s economy now ranks among the nation’s weakest. Real GDP has risen an average of just 1.5% per year since 2017 — well below the U.S. average. Over seven years, real median household income grew just 1.5%.2 On the ag side, tariffs have weakened grain prices, and farm bankruptcies are on the rise.3 Cutting public services in a soft economy is risky because it takes resources out of our communities and further reduces economic demand, which in turn reduces state revenue.4 

Iowans’ lives would become less affordable 

• It would encourage lawmakers to solve our budget problems by raising the sales tax. The sales tax is a regressive tax disproportionately borne by lower-income, working Iowans — the same folks who saw little benefit from recent income-tax cuts5 and who already pay a higher share of their incomes in total state and local taxes than their wealthier neighbors do.6 

• Cuts to the programs that help Iowans get by and get ahead would be virtually unavoidable. Even if lawmakers find consensus on some new revenue raisers, they are unlikely to be enough to replace the dollars lost to steep income-tax cuts. When our surpluses are used up, lawmakers will be left with few options beyond deeply unpopular budget cuts. Many Iowans should expect to pay more for health care, child care and college tuition, and all should expect program cuts, to everything from schools to water-quality initiatives and cancer research.

It betrays democratic principles of representative government 

• Requiring a two-thirds majority is a near insurmountable hurdle, even for bills with bipartisan support. By making two “yes” votes for raising the personal or corporate income tax worth just one “no” vote, lawmakers would permanently shift the balance of power further toward well-connected tax opponents.  

• In fact, minority-rule requirements like these empower big-money special interests, who need to influence an even smaller group of lawmakers to hold a bill hostage.7 Given today’s historically large degree of political polarization, we should expect a supermajority requirement on raising revenue will lead to even more gridlock.8 

• The truth is, for decades, raising taxes in Iowa has been difficult — even with a simple majority vote. The amendment would insert the amendment’s proponents into the business of future lawmakers with no knowledge of what future facts on the ground might be. 

Iowa voters have the opportunity to turn the page on reckless fiscal policy by rejecting the constitutional amendment in November. 

Notes

1    Common Good Iowa, “The path forward: Raise revenue, don’t slash the budget,” January 2026. Accessed at https://www.commongoodiowa.org/moduledocuments/embed/119/260114_Data_snapshot_Path_forward_i_60BC53FE1CA93.pdf 
2    State of Iowa, Iowa’s Gross Domestic Product. Accessed at https://data.iowa.gov/stories/s/Iowa-s-Gross-Domestic-Product/ubgu-5xaq/. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Real Median Household Income in Iowa. Accessed at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSIAA672N\
3    Faith Parum, “Declining Farm Economy Continues to Pressure Profitability,” Farm Bureau, October 6, 2025. Accessed at https://www.fb.org/market-intel/declining-farm-economy-continues-to-pressure-profitability  
4    Michael Leachman, “Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 2012. Accessed at https://www.cbpp.org/blog/why-supermajority-requirements-to-raise-taxes-are-a-bad-idea. See also Roxanne Bland, State Supermajority Requirements: A Good Idea at the Time?” Tax Notes, April 2020. Accessed at https://www.taxnotes.com/opinions/state-supermajority-requirements-good-idea-time/2020/04/10/2cdly 
5    Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis for Common Good Iowa
6    ITEP, Who Pays? 7th edition. January 2024. Accessed at https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/
7    Leachman
8    Diane Stirling, “The ‘Great Divide’: Understanding US Political Polarization,” Syracuse University, October 23, 2025. Accessed at https://news.syr.edu/2025/10/23/the-great-divide-understanding-us-political-polarization/. See also Pew Research Center, “As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration with the Two-Party System. August 9, 2022. Accessed at https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/