Let’s start with a premise Iowans understand: government will always face pressure to spend more, and too often it looks to families and businesses to fund that growth. That’s why strong guardrails are essential, and the most durable ones are written into the Constitution.
The late David Stanley, founder of Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation—and a former legislator himself—firmly believed that constitutional protections were necessary precisely because politicians would not limit spending on their own. He referred to such protections as “Taxpayer Rights Amendments,” arguing they were essential to allowing families to keep more of what they earn and produce.
The Iowa House is now advancing a proposed constitutional amendment, which would create a requirement that income tax increases receive a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature. The proposed amendment has already passed the Senate and if it passes the full House this spring, it will appear on the ballot for voter approval during November’s election.
The fundamental reason a two-thirds majority requirement is needed is because it protects the taxpayers. It’s that simple. Raising taxes should be difficult, and it should certainly be harder to raise taxes than it is now.
Other states offer a cautionary example: Washington, which previously had no income tax at all, recently passed legislation creating one to address a budget shortfall. Illinois has raised various taxes more than 30 times since 2019 under Governor Pritzker. And several more states, including California, are exploring new tax schemes right now to make sure their revenue keeps pace with their spending.
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. Government spending drives taxation. When raising taxes becomes more difficult, legislators are more likely to examine existing spending, prioritize programs, and seek efficiencies before turning to taxpayers for additional revenue.
Seventeen states already operate under a similar rule, including progressive states like Oregon and swing states such as Arizona. In Iowa, support for a supermajority requirement is broad and bipartisan: nearly 72% of Iowans support it, including majorities of Democrats and independents.
Constitutional protection would not freeze tax policy in place; instead, it would preserve the structure that rewards work, limits government’s reach into private income, and ensures that future tax changes occur in the open—with accountability, discipline, and respect for the taxpayers who ultimately fund government. In doing so, it would provide long-term certainty for everyone who is making decisions about saving, investing, and living in Iowa.
As Senator Jack Whitver noted while he was serving as Majority Leader, “Constitutional amendments to require…a supermajority to raise taxes give Iowans the confidence to know state government will stay within its means, and taxes will remain low, fair, and structured to promote growth.”
At its core, this amendment is about restoring balance. Government will always face pressure to spend more, but taxpayers deserve a system that requires real justification before asking them to give more. A two-thirds requirement ensures that higher taxes are the last resort—not the first response—when budgets tighten. It shifts the burden back where it belongs: on government to prioritize, manage responsibly, and live within its means. By embedding that principle in the Constitution, Iowa can provide lasting protection for taxpayers and reinforce a simple but essential truth: the money belongs to the people first, not the government.
Print a PDF