In the closing days of the 2026 Election, many Iowans are still thinking about Amendment One, the constitutional question which is being asked on the back of ballots. Amendment One simply calls for a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise income taxes. To put it another way, it makes it more difficult for a future legislature to increase income tax rates, or to create a new income tax.
This current supermajority requirement is not a new idea. The Iowa Legislature, through two identical rounds of approval, has already approved this measure and sent it to voters. Similar supermajority requirements also exist in 16 other states. For Iowa, protecting the tax reforms and competitive gains achieved in recent years is a natural next step. A supermajority requirement would help keep rates low, provide businesses with greater certainty to invest and grow, and guard against reversing courses toward the higher taxes and spending seen in other states. Together, these protections provide a more stable foundation for economic growth.
Increasing taxes is simply bad fiscal policy. Income taxes, in particular, are among the most harmful to economic growth, employment, and wage growth. Tax increases not only encourage higher levels of government spending but can also erode the tax base by discouraging investment, productivity, and economic activity. Ultimately, raising taxes of any kind, regardless of the timing, is poor fiscal policy.
Finally, Iowans should be more resistant to overspending. This is the greatest threat to budget instability. When the Iowa Senate approved this measure the first time, Senator Jason Schultz stated, “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up for annual, year after year, new good ideas, you can’t have good tax policy.” The reality is that if Iowans are concerned about a future economic emergency, then they should be worried about how much government spends.
At the close of the 1932 presidential campaign, President Herbert Hoover stated that “this campaign is more than a contest between two men. It is more than a contest between two parties. It is a contest between two philosophies of government.” Declaring that the debate surrounding Amendment One is also “a contest between two philosophies of government” could not be more true. Opponents of the Amendment believe that more government programs, more government services, and more government involvement in our lives also means that government programs should have an almost unlimited claim on taxpayer dollars. In their view, anything short of a blank check means that programs are being underfunded.
The contrasting viewpoint is that the legislature must prioritize its spending and that it should, in fact, be hard to increase income taxes. Government should be expected to live within its means, just as Iowa families and businesses must do every day. Rather than continually asking taxpayers for more money, lawmakers should be required to make difficult decisions, distinguish between wants and needs, and demonstrate that additional revenue is truly necessary. Amendment One embraces that philosophy by requiring a broader consensus before government can take more of Iowans' hard-earned income.