Reckless minority-rule tax amendment risks our schools, safety, health

As few as 17 Senators could block a majority of lawmakers from passing tax laws

February 12, 2026 | PDF

A deeply anti-democratic tax bill, SJR 11, has reared its ugly head again this session. It calls for a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would derail our state’s ability to fund the services that help make Iowa a good place to live, work and raise a family.  

By requiring personal or corporate income tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds vote in each house, SJR 11 would virtually lock in the recent spate of tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and make it difficult to fix our escalating revenue crisis.

Such a rule is often short-handed as a “supermajority requirement.” But another 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 correcting fiscal problems stemming from the tax policies lawmakers have passed since 2018.

In Iowa, constitutional amendment questions must pass through two separate General Assemblies to reach the ballot. This question first passed in 2024 as SJR 2006. It’s now back as SJR 11. If lawmakers approve it again this session, it will appear on the fall ballot, where it will need just a simple majority to pass.

What was risky two years ago is outright reckless today

There’s never a good time to place draconian limits on our ability to raise revenue — but now is distinctly bad.

• After slashing the income tax, our state simply isn’t bringing in enough revenue to sustain the services Iowans expect. When lawmakers first passed their minority-rule bill in 2024, the largest cuts were not yet in effect. Now they are. State revenue has dropped by 17% since its peak, and we face a $1.3 billion deficit in the current fiscal year. At historic rates of revenue and spending growth, our surpluses will be gone in less than three years.[1]

• Iowa faces substantial new costs to sustain Medicaid and SNAP, due to the 2025 Republican federal reconciliation bill. H.R.1 shifts substantial program costs onto states through a variety of increased administration responsibilities. It also limits use of provider taxes, which almost all states, including Iowa, use to help fund their Medicaid programs outside of the General Fund. Over time, these provisions will cost Iowa millions.[2]

• Tough economic headwinds are likely to worsen our revenue 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 — and over seven years, real median household income grew just 1.5%.[3] On the ag side, tariffs have weakened grain prices, and the number of farm bankruptcies is on the rise.[4] Cutting public services when the economy is weakening is unwise because it compounds the problems, leaving struggling households with little help at a time when finding a good job is challenging.[5]

SJF 11 would lock in regressive revenue raising and force budget cuts

The bill would visit its biggest harms on lower-income Iowans, who saw little benefit from recent tax cuts skewed to the wealthy.[6] In fact, this group pays higher shares of their incomes in state and local taxes than their wealthier neighbors do.[7] They would also bear the brunt of cuts to the services they depend on to get by and get ahead.

• SJR 11 would force legislators to choose primarily from regressive revenue-raising options. That includes increasing the sales tax, fines and fees and forcing public colleges and universities to rely even more on tuition. All these moves would make working Iowans’ lives less affordable — not more.

• By making it nearly impossible to raise our what has been our largest revenue source, the income tax, SJR 11 would make budget cuts virtually unavoidable. Even if we find consensus on some alternate revenue raisers, they’re unlikely to be enough to replace the dollars lost to steep income-tax cuts. Once our surpluses are gone, lawmakers will be left with few options beyond deeply unpopular budget cuts. Schools, health care, child care and enforcement of environmental and worker protections are all vulnerable.

The bill betrays democratic principles of representative government

The truth is, for decades, raising taxes in Iowa has been difficult — even with a simple majority vote. SJR 11 would insert current lawmakers into the business of future lawmakers with no knowledge of what facts on the ground might be in the future.

• Requiring a two-thirds majority is a virtually insurmountable hurdle to approving even 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 even more toward well-connected opponents of income taxes.

• In fact, minority-rule requirements like those in SJR 11 empower big-money special interests, who need to influence an even smaller group of lawmakers into order to hold a bill hostage.[8] Given today’s historically large degree of political polarization, we should expect that a supermajority requirement to raise revenue will lead to even more gridlock.[9]  

Given the difficulties ahead, future lawmakers must have the full array of policy tools in their toolbelts to address them. SJR 11 is reckless and anti-democratic. Lawmakers should reject it.

To learn more about sensible, equitable tax policy, contact Kylie Spies.