Iowa ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Iowa Amendment 1, explained
Two-thirds legislative vote to raise income taxes. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wording
Explanation: This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa, for adoption by the second consecutive general assembly, relating to restrictions on certain tax law changes. The amendment requires a bill that increases the individual income tax rate or corporate income tax rate, or the rate of any other type of tax based upon income or legal and special reserves, to be adopted by at least two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the general assembly. In addition, the amendment requires a bill that establishes a new tax on any type of income or legal and special reserves imposed by the state to be adopted by at least two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the general assembly. A lawsuit challenging enactment of a bill subject to the two-thirds majority passage requirement must be filed no later than one year following the enactment of the bill. Finally, the amendment requires the general assembly to enact laws to implement the amendment. The resolution, if adopted, would be submitted to the electorate for ratification at the general election in November 2026.
This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
What it actually means
Today the Iowa Legislature can change income tax rates by a simple majority, like any other bill. This amendment would add a new article to the state constitution requiring two-thirds of all members elected to each chamber — 67 of 100 representatives and 34 of 50 senators — to pass a bill raising the individual or corporate income tax rate, or creating a new tax on income or on credit unions' legal and special reserves. Cutting taxes would still take a simple majority, and local option taxes are not covered.
If you vote YES
- A bill increasing the individual income tax rate, the corporate income tax rate, or the rate of any other tax based on income or on legal and special reserves would need the votes of at least two-thirds of the members elected to each chamber — an absolute two-thirds, counting the full membership rather than those present.
- A bill creating a new state tax on any type of income or on legal and special reserves would need the same two-thirds vote. Legal and special reserves are the funds Iowa credit unions must hold against risk and loss.
- Taxes imposed at the option of a local government would be exempt from the requirement.
- Any lawsuit claiming a bill was enacted without the required two-thirds vote would have to be filed within one year of enactment, after which the bill would be treated as properly enacted; and every bill subject to the requirement would have to say so in a separate provision.
- The General Assembly would have to pass implementing legislation. Iowa would join the 15 states that have a legislative supermajority requirement for raising income taxes.
If you vote NO
- Income tax rates would continue to be set the way every other Iowa law is made: a simple majority of each chamber and the governor's signature.
- No new Article XIII would be added to the constitution, and no special rule would apply to a tax on credit unions' legal and special reserves.
- A future legislature could still adopt a supermajority requirement by statute, though an ordinary statute could be repealed by the same simple majority.
- Iowa would remain outside the group of states with a constitutional supermajority requirement for income tax increases.
The numbers that matter
- Votes needed to raise income taxes if approved
- 67 of 100 House members and 34 of 50 senators
Two-thirds of the members elected to each house, as specified in the text of Senate Joint Resolution 11
Why supporters say YES
"A supermajority requirement is not designed to make tax increases impossible. Rather, it forces consensus. By raising the threshold for approval, a tax increase must appeal to a broader coalition of elected officials, ensuring that a tax increase isn't the default option when the budget gets tight. It also serves as an indirect spending restraint."
— Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation, which founded and funds the Make Tax Hikes Harder campaign
"Amendment 1 requires a two-thirds vote of the Iowa Legislature before state taxes can be increased. It doesn't eliminate the ability to raise taxes, but it encourages government to prioritize responsible spending before asking Iowa families and businesses to pay more."
— Make Tax Hikes Harder, the campaign in support
"Importantly, the amendment does not dictate how lawmakers must set the state budget in the future. It does not require spending cuts, reductions in school funding, or increases in sales or other state taxes… The amendment addresses one question: How much legislative agreement should be required to raise state income taxes?"
— John Hendrickson, policy director, Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation
Why opponents say NO
"[The measure] 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… They would also bear the brunt of cuts to the services they depend on to get by and get ahead."
— Common Good Iowa
"Surpluses do not last forever. They are temporary by definition… Iowa's Constitution, however, is meant to endure. Constitutional amendments are deliberately difficult to reverse. If Amendment 1 is approved, its effects would remain long after today's surplus has been spent down — perhaps 10, 20 or 30 years from now."
— Linda Hagedorn, co-president, League of Women Voters of Iowa
"I take very seriously any changes to our Iowa state Constitution, and second, I do not believe in minority rules. I think it'll really tie the hands of the Legislature, and 90% of the reason they're there is to represent Iowans and make votes on taxes and expenditures."
— State Rep. David Jacoby (D-86)
What’s genuinely uncertain
- The amendment's reach beyond income tax is not obvious from its title. It also covers "legal and special reserves," the reserves Iowa credit unions must hold — which is why the Iowa Credit Union League is among the supporters — and a tax on those reserves has been proposed in past sessions.
- Whether "any other type of tax based upon income" would cover things like a capital gains or franchise tax is untested and neither campaign has published a list.
- No state fiscal note estimating the amendment's budget effect was located; both sides argue about likely consequences rather than from an official projection.
- The one-year limit on lawsuits means a bill passed without the required two-thirds vote would become unchallengeable after a year, which neither campaign has discussed in detail.
The bottom line
Whether raising Iowa's income taxes should need a two-thirds vote written into the constitution rather than the simple majority every other bill needs; supporters say it forces broad agreement and restrains spending, opponents say it hands a minority of legislators a veto that will outlast today's budget surplus.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Checking it against the official text
The Iowa Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Iowa Secretary of State.
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in Iowa
- Iowa governor's race
- Iowa's 1st congressional district
- Iowa's 2nd congressional district
- Iowa's 3rd congressional district
- Iowa's 4th congressional district