Iowa Amendment 1 would require a two-thirds majority in each legislative chamber for income tax increases if voters approve the constitutional change on November 3, 2026. The proposal appears on the ballot as Statewide Public Measure 1.
The measure covers increases to individual and corporate income-tax rates, as well as other state taxes based on income or legal and special reserves. It would also apply to a bill creating a new state tax on those sources.
Some taxes sit outside the proposal. It excludes taxes imposed at a local government’s option and does not cover other forms of taxation.
The amendment would not make tax cuts harder to pass. A simple majority could still approve them.
The ballot asks voters: “Shall the following amendment to the Constitution be adopted?” Voters will choose yes or no.
If approved, the new rule would govern covered bills going forward. The text also lays out requirements for drafting and challenging those bills.
The proposal raises the bar for covered bills, not tax cuts
| Vote threshold | Iowa House | Iowa Senate |
|---|---|---|
| Current threshold for a tax-rate change | 51 votes | 26 votes |
| Proposed threshold for covered bills | 67 votes | 34 votes |
Current law also requires the governor’s signature for a tax-rate change. The proposed threshold counts members elected to each chamber, not just those present for a vote.
The amendment would add a section to Article XIII of the Iowa Constitution. For covered rate increases, it reaches individual and corporate income taxes and other taxes based on income or legal and special reserves.
A bill establishing a new state tax on any type of income or legal and special reserves would face the same vote requirement. Taxes imposed at the option of a local government remain excluded.
Each covered bill would have to contain a separate provision describing the enactment requirements. The text directs the general assembly to pass laws implementing the section.
A lawsuit challenging whether a covered bill was properly enacted would need to be filed within one year of enactment. If no suit arrives within that period, the bill would be considered properly enacted under the section.
S.J.R. 11 passed through two successive general assemblies
The House journal identifies the measure as S.J.R. 11. It records adoption by the 90th General Assembly in the 2024 Session, followed by adoption by the 91st General Assembly. The journal describes the resolution as “adopted and agreed to by the 90th General Assembly, 2024 Session, thereafter duly published, and now adopted and agreed to by the 91st General Assembly.”
Republican Iowa State Sen. Kevin Alons described the process this way: “It had to go through both chambers two different times, over the span of at least more than two years.” If voters ratify the proposal, it would become the fifty-second amendment to Iowa’s constitution.
A separate House floor dispute involved amendment H-8481, offered by Ramirez of Linn. Wills of Dickinson argued it was not germane, and the Speaker ruled the point well taken. An objection followed Ramirez’s request for unanimous consent to suspend the rules.
The motion to suspend the rules drew 21 ayes and 57 nays. The ayes were Baeth, Bagniewski, Cooling, Ehlert, Gosa, Jacoby, Johnson, R., Judge, Konfrest, Levin, Matson, McBurney, Meyer, B., Nielsen, Ramirez, Srinivas, Wessel-Kroeschell, Wichtendahl, Wilburn and Zabner.
Supporters want to preserve rate cuts as opponents warn of other taxes
Supporters describe the measure as a safeguard for recent reductions. Iowa’s top individual income-tax rate fell from 8.98% to a flat 3.8% for all income taxpayers. Corporate taxes fell to 5.5% on the first $100,000 of corporate income. Another account places current corporate rates between 5.5% and 7.1%, and says the top corporate rate was 12% a decade ago, when Iowa also had the country’s sixth-highest top individual rate.
Chris Hagenow, president of Iowans for Tax Relief, said the amendment would secure gains taxpayers had made as Iowa moved from “one of the worst income tax regimes in the country” to a flat rate. The group urges a yes vote, arguing that higher taxes should not be easy to enact.
Hagenow said raising income taxes should be a last resort when state finances come under pressure. He argued lawmakers could first slow spending, and said supporters believe the amendment would require broader agreement without preventing legislators from responding to financial changes.
Common Good Iowa is campaigning against the measure. Its executive director, Anne Discher, wrote: “Amendment 1 would help corporations and the rich avoid paying what they owe.” She said limiting the state’s revenue options could make it harder to pay for public schools, health care and water-cleanup initiatives.
Rep. Dave Jacoby, a Democrat from Coralville, calls the proposal the “BS” amendment, short for “Billionaire Syndrome.” He argues Iowa’s tax structure gives its largest breaks to people with the deepest pockets and does not look far enough ahead to fund public services.
Economists and opponents point to revenue choices beyond income taxes
Liesl Eathington, a researcher in Iowa State University’s Department of Economics for 25 years, said comparisons with other states do not produce a clear forecast for Iowa. Tax coverage, legal structure and state economies differ, she said. Arkansas, which adopted a similar policy in the 1930s and does not include sales taxes, has shifted toward sales-tax revenue, according to Eathington.
Justin Holmes, a political science professor at UNI, said the amendment “would make it substantially harder to pass income tax increases in the future if this were to pass.” He said opponents also worry about revenue shortfalls leading to cuts in services, including education and social services.
The sales-tax debate has a longer record in Iowa. The last successful increase came in 2008, when House File 2663 repealed the 1-cent School Infrastructure Local Option tax and added that amount to the state sales tax, which became 6%. The penny continued to fund education through the statewide SAVE fund, distributed per student.
Other sales-tax proposals failed. Gov. Kim Reynolds proposed raising the rate, with tax cuts elsewhere to offset it, in her 2020 Condition of the State address. A 2023 bill from state Sen. Dan Dawson, a Republican from Council Bluffs, would have replaced local-option sales taxes with a statewide tax to help reduce property taxes without service cuts.
In Woodbury County, registered voter Ezra Luse said he had not known the amendment would appear on the ballot and would need to research it. Registered voter Wayne Nielsen said he had heard of it but was unsure he knew enough about the proposal.
Woodbury County Auditor and Recorder Michelle Skaff said the county trained about 25 satellite workers for early-voting sites at Long Lines, Morningside, Briar Cliff, Western Iowa Tech and Sergeant Bluff. The county plans 30 polling locations and over 70 ballot styles.
