Legislature wraps, property taxes, GOP debate, new polls
May 4 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"
Welcome to new subscribers! Here’s what you can expect in this space. Every Tuesday I share the previous night’s episode of my 30-minute radio show, “KHOI’s Capitol Week.” (It’s also available through podcast platforms and on KHOI Community Radio’s Facebook page.) Later in the week, I usually cross-post a deep dive first published at Bleeding Heartland, like my piece about Senator Chuck Grassley’s hot mic moment, which may have brought you here.
Since Dennis Hart and I launched the radio show in early 2021, and continuing with Spencer Dirks as co-host since 2024, we’ve made an editorial decision to pack as much news as we can into our 30 minutes together, rather than focus on a few Iowa politics stories each week. So “KHOI’s Capitol Week” moves at a fast pace.
The audio file is always at the top of my Substack posts, so it’s easy to find. I write a detailed recap for those who would rather read; those posts are available here.
Everything I publish is freely available, including the whole archive on Substack and at Bleeding Heartland, and every video I upload to YouTube, because I believe the news should be accessible to all, regardless of what’s in their bank account.
Those who choose to support my work can make one-time contributions via credit card, Venmo, PayPal, or personal check (message me for the address), or recurring contributions using a credit card or Substack. However, to avoid conflicts of interest I don’t accept donations from Iowa elected officials, candidates, or paid staff or consultants on Iowa campaigns.
Here’s what Spencer and I covered on our May 4 program. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read it without interruption here.
Legislature adjourns after very long weekend
The Iowa House and Senate were both in session on Friday (which is unusual) and wrapped up their work for the year on Sunday evening. Most lawmakers spent the whole weekend at the state capitol, and I was right there with them, arriving around 9 AM on Saturday and not leaving until close to 8 PM on Sunday. Fortunately, I had prepared for the marathon, bringing lots of food, my toothbrush, and a change of clothes with me.
With hindsight, there were stretches where I could have gone home to get a few hours of sleep. (You can see some long gaps in the action from the record of House and Senate work on May 2.) But you never know when things will come together. After leaders agree on the outstanding bills, everything moves quickly. The last couple of years, the final debates occurred between 4 AM and 6 AM.
All-nighters have become standard operating procedure at the end of a session, and I can’t convey how bad the process is. There is no transparency: even the rank and file Republicans knew little about what was going on as House and Senate leaders and Governor Kim Reynolds’ legislative liaison were hammering out the final details of property tax reform.
The public and most legislators were unable to see the final text of the last budget bill or the property tax deal until Sunday afternoon. So there was no opportunity for meaningful public input or feedback from stakeholders.
I attended the last House Appropriations Committee meeting, which began around 10:40 pm on Saturday night. The only item on the agenda was the last budget bill, which was just a shell. It ended up being 36 pages long, with lots of policy unrelated to spending. Democratic State Representative Jennifer Konfrst, who is retiring this year, critiqued the process: “we don’t need to be here right now.” She said she was “tired of being held hostage” and it’s “not the best way to make policy.” The speaker’s office could send people home until they figure things out, then bring people back for final votes on Monday or Tuesday.
A fun bit of trivia: the House never adjourned on May 2. So technically, everything they did on Sunday happened on May 2 as a legislative day. The Senate did adjourn on Sunday morning and reconvened on Sunday afternoon, so they finished their work on May 3 as a legislative day.
Republicans agree on property tax deal
A deal on overhauling property taxes finally came together on Sunday afternoon and was one of the last bills approved this year. There were loud cheers in the House when a staffer walked over the property tax bill after senators had passed it.
Here’s the full text of the strike-after amendment that became the final version of Senate File 2472. I couldn’t summarize everything in this 82-page bill on the air. The Cedar Rapids Gazette, Des Moines Register, and Iowa Capital Dispatch all published good articles about the agreement.
On previous shows we’ve highlighted how far apart the House and Senate Republicans were on their approaches to property taxes. While both sides can claim some wins, the final deal looks much closer to what the House wanted, from where I’m sitting.
Local government revenue growth on most levies will be capped at 2 percent, with some exceptions (for instance for new construction). House Republicans were adamant about a “hard cap” of 2 percent, while Senate Republicans wanted an inflation adjustment to make the limits less onerous for local governments. The Register noted that the final version “contains exceptions for several levies that will not be included in the cap, making it less strict than the version House Republicans initially proposed.”
Iowa’s current homestead tax credit will be converted to a homestead tax exemption, amounting to a minimum of $5,500 or 10 percent of the home value and a maximum of $20,000, which will be adjusted for inflation. That’s different from what the House originally proposed but is philosophically closer to the House goal of providing relief to all homeowners, without extra benefits for those over age 65.
The state will use some money saved from not having a homestead tax credit to pay for K-12 education, which will lower the main property tax levy used to fund schools.
The bill doesn’t raise the gas tax to help fund road and bridge projects, which was an important component of the Senate bill.
Unlike the Senate proposal, the final deal doesn’t eliminate the complicated “rollback” system Iowa has used since the late 1970s. Senate Ways and Means Committee chair Dan Dawson had argued the rollback makes it hard for local governments to do long-range planning.
The bill makes several changes to tax-increment financing districts, which senators had proposed in the past. The city of Des Moines already put one redevelopment project on hold Monday as staff evaluate the impact of the changes to TIF.
One win for the Senate was a gradual increase in property taxes on multi-residential properties like apartment buildings, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. Iowa lowered those taxes as part of a 2013 property tax cut, which Dawson has criticized as “cronyism.” This part of the bill, which will eventually mean multi-residential properties are taxed up to 6 percent more than single-family homes, is less ambitious than what the Senate had proposed.
Less controversial elements of the bill include a change to property tax statements mailed to Iowans, and Governor Reynolds’ proposal to establish tax-deductible savings accounts for first-time homebuyers. (Like 529 accounts for higher education expenses, people from well-off families will benefit more than those struggling to make ends meet.)
No doubt there will be a push to increase the gas tax next year, but that may be hard to accomplish in a stand-alone bill.
House and Senate Democrats disagree on property taxes
The House and Senate Democrats were also very far apart in how they approached property tax reform. In January, House Democrats released their own plan, which included a property tax freeze for seniors and rebates for homeowners and renters. Their Senate counterparts didn’t sign on.
Just like a few weeks ago, Sunday’s vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan in the Senate. Democratic State Senator Herman Quirmbach cast the only vote against the final bill. During the floor debate on Sunday afternoon, several Democrats expressed their appreciation for how Senator Dawson involved them in the process and worked with them in good faith.
In written statements released later, Democratic Senators Cindy Winckler and Tony Bisignano praised the deal. Bisignano said, “This legislation isn’t perfect. But it brings real property tax relief for homeowners, avoids the hard cap on our local governments, and moves Iowa away from prioritizing commercial interests.”
The House vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans (Charley Thomson and Matt Rinker) voting against the deal and four Democrats (Sean Bagniewski, Dan Gosa, Kenan Judge, and Elizabeth Wilson) voting for it.
Several Democrats spoke against the bill during floor debate. State Representative Aime Wichtendahl said the final deal “has all the vibes of a college student waiting all semester to start their final project just two hours before the deadline.” She argued that the “one-size-fits-all” bill won’t reduce Iowans’ property taxes.
Lawmakers adjourn with no action on eminent domain
Toward the end of the 2025 session, there was a lot of drama in the Iowa Senate over an eminent domain bill. Soon after convening in January, the Iowa House passed a simple bill banning eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. But the full Senate never considered that bill, or an alternate proposal from Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, before lawmakers adjourned for the year.
The Klimesh plan would have given landowners some additional protections but still allowed eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in some circumstances. Meanwhile, fellow Republican Senator Kevin Alons was working to build support around his own proposal, which would have banned eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. Neither of them could convince 26 Republican senators to support their approach. As far as I can tell, Senate Democrats were not brought into these negotiations.
Last year, a dozen GOP senators refused to vote on budget bills until the chamber debated a House-approved pipeline bill. There was no rebellion this year.
A few Republican incumbents have primary challengers, and property rights could be a major issue in those campaigns.
Republicans move to limit next governor’s powers
Budget bills took up much of the legislature’s time over the last few days. (Next week we’ll cover several notable provisions of the individual spending bills.) But some policy bills also came together this weekend, including a proposal to restrict the next governor’s powers.
Remember, for nine years, the GOP-controlled legislature did nothing to rein in the governor. They gave Reynolds total control over how to use COVID-19 relief funds, and before that, they increased her influence over judicial nominations.
Suddenly, with the 2026 governor’s race looking like a toss-up, the House and Senate considered a range of bills to restrict what Reynolds’ successor can accomplish.
Some of the more extreme proposals to tie the next governor’s hands—such as requiring legislative approval for any agency action that would cost more than $200,000—didn’t move forward.
The final bill that passed, House File 2694, was mostly about the governor’s emergency powers. The next governor will not be able to order churches to close, regulate Iowans’ conduct in their own homes, order people to get vaccines, and so on.
Senate Republicans tried to amend the bill last Wednesday to add language allowing state government to stay open if a governor failed to sign a budget into law before the new fiscal year. A late amendment changed the bill, so the legislature would still be obligated to pass a budget before adjourning. However, it would have created a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation, with little incentive to compromise with the next governor. If he vetoed the appropriations bills, the spending previously approved by the legislature would go into effect. Democrats slammed the proposal, saying Iowans expect the legislature to work with the governor on the budget.
House Republicans didn’t like that idea for a different reason: they worried it would give the executive branch too much power to adjust spending levels to align with projected revenues. So when the bill came back to the lower chamber, the House refused to concur with the Senate amendment. The Senate then “receded” from their amendment and passed the bill without language related to the budget.
The upshot is that the legislature will need to negotiate the budget with the new governor next year. But if there’s another emergency (a pandemic or any kind of disaster), the governor’s response will be constrained. That could lead to many preventable deaths if a virus more deadly than COVID takes hold.
A few other bills enacted this year would limit the governor’s ability to change state policy related to public assistance programs. I’m researching this issue, so stay tuned. House Republicans believed they blocked a Senate proposal to codify Medicaid privatization. However, it appears a little-noticed provision in Senate File 2422 (now awaiting the governor’s signature) may have done that anyway.
Medication abortion bill goes to governor
One of the last bills to get across the finish line would restrict the use of abortion medications in Iowa. House Republicans approved House File 2788 on Friday evening, and Senate Republicans passed it on Sunday evening. The Senate vote fell strictly along party lines; one Republican (Mark Cisneros) voted against the bill in the House, because it did not go far enough to ban abortion.
A priority for anti-abortion groups such as The FAMiLY Leader and Pulse Life Advocates (formerly Iowa Right to Life), the bill would require an in-person visit to receive mifepristone or misoprostol. Physicians would have to screen patients for “coercion or abuse” and give them information about the risks associated with medication abortion (a procedure that is much safer than pregnancy or childbirth).
An amendment removed some reporting requirements that could have forced physicians to violate the federal privacy law known as HIPAA, along with language from the original bill that would have required providers to give patients inaccurate information about “abortion reversal.” Nevertheless, the lobbyist declarations show every medical or public health organization registered against this bill, as Democratic State Representative Austin Baeth (a medical doctor) pointed out during the House debate.
State Representative Megan Srinivas, also a medical doctor, warned House Republicans that the bill it wouldn’t achieve its stated goal, because black market abortion drugs are already illegal. (Srinivas didn’t mention this, but I separately confirmed that Planned Parenthood North Central States does not mail abortion medications to Iowa patients.)
However, the ban on telehealth services for abortion care will create greater burdens for women in rural Iowa, and will be another obstacle to recruiting and retaining OB/GYNs to work here. Several Democratic lawmakers pointed out that Iowa is already last in the nation in OB/GYNs per capita.
The Senate didn’t debate this bill until late Sunday. The talk around the capital was that Senate leaders were holding up consideration of this bill until the chamber had passed almost all of the appropriations bills, to prevent a rebellion aimed at securing a floor vote on eminent domain.
The Senate debate got hot when State Senator Zach Wahls pointed out that raw milk was more dangerous for pregnant women than medication abortion. (Watch part of his remarks here.) Republican State Senator Jason Schultz, who was floor managing the abortion bill, worked for seventeen years toward the 2023 bill legalizing sales of raw milk. He and some other Republicans didn’t appreciate the analogy.
We’ve reported before that House leaders didn’t bring this bill to the floor because GOP State Representative Zach Dieken had filed an amendment with “personhood” language that would ban abortion with no exceptions. Speaker Pat Grassley referred the bill to the Appropriations Committee (even though it was not a spending bill), and Republicans passed it out with a new bill number. The floor manager then filed two amendments, a process known as “double-barrelling,” which prevents anyone else from offering an amendment on the floor.
Dieken was absent for the last several days of the legislative session and didn’t reply to my email inquiry. I don’t know whether House leaders ran the bill this past week knowing Dieken had a prior commitment, or whether he stayed away from the capitol after realizing he would not be able to force a floor vote on a total abortion ban.
Republicans put tax-related constitutional amendment on ballot
One of the last bills approved in the House on Sunday was Senate Joint Resolution 11, a state constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise income taxes or corporate taxes. Sales taxes and some other fees could be increased by a simple majority vote, so if this language becomes part of the constitution, it will lock in a regressive tax system.
Amending the constitution is a long process in Iowa. Two separately elected legislatures must approve the same language, after which the proposed amendment must receive majority approval in a statewide election. Republicans in both chambers approved the supermajority amendment in 2024, and the Senate passed this measure again last year.
Why didn’t it come to the House floor sooner? House leaders haven’t publicly commented on the timing. They were rumored to hold it back as leverage in negotiations with the other chamber.
House Democrats offered many amendments, which would have required supermajority votes to do other things (spending money from Iowa’s Taxpayer Relief Fund, raising taxes on health care or food, increasing funding for Education Savings Accounts). All were declared not germane or voted down.
Iowa voters will decide in November whether this language is added to the state constitution. Republicans put a similar amendment (requiring a three-fifths majority vote to raise taxes) on a statewide ballot in June 1999, but it failed by a roughly 52 percent to 48 percent margin.
Lawmakers approve $3 million per year for pediatric cancer research
We mentioned on last week’s show that the House and Senate were at odds over how to fund pediatric cancer research. In the end, both sides got what they wanted.
The “standings” bill (House File 2800) included $3 million to the University of Iowa for this purpose in fiscal year 2027, which begins on July 1. Under Senate File 2480, the state will levy a new five-cent tax on vape products and tobacco pouches, and the first $3 million collected each year will cover pediatric cancer research starting in fiscal year 2028.
The Senate unanimously approved the vape tax bill on April 22. But in the House, thirteen Democrats and five Republicans voted against the bill on May 2 (roll call). Some Democrats pointed out that the big tobacco companies proposed this minimal tax (not enough to deter vaping or tobacco use) because they think it will innoculate them against any increase in Iowa’s tobacco tax for many years.
Republican State Representative Brent Siegriest, who floor managed the vape tax bill, argued that not only would the tax provide $3 million in state funding for pediatric cancer research every year, but it would also allow the state to draw down additional federal funds.
Republicans pass last-minute water investment plan
On Friday morning Governor Kim Reynolds, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig, and Republican lawmakers announced a major new investment in water quality. Here’s a fact sheet on the plan from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Robin Opsahl explained the main points in this story for Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Reynolds’ office claimed the “Farm to Faucet” proposal would involve $319 million in funding for water quality over the next twelve years. Some of that will be “new money,” while other programs will be paid for by shifting money around .Some of the funds would support ongoing programs; there’s also some one-time money, such as $25 million for the Central Iowa Water Works to expand its nitrate removal system.
Republicans enacted this proposal as an amendment to Senate File 2487, the agriculture and natural resources appropriation bill.
On the Bleeding Heartland YouTube channel, I posted the video of the news conference rolling out the plan, along with reaction from Democratic State Representatives Elinor Levin and Austin Baeth.
I also interviewed Chris Jones, the Democratic candidate for Iowa secretary of agriculture, on Friday afternoon. Jones is making clean water the centerpiece of his campaign, and I believe that is the main reason Naig and other Republicans felt pressure to come up with something on this scale. Jones characterized this plan as "more money to spend on band-aids and diapers without addressing the true causes" of the water pollution. He also criticized Republicans for putting all of the burden on Iowa taxpayers to fund these programs, instead of forcing polluters to pay.
As of Friday, the proposal involved a $500,000 annual appropriation to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for additional water quality monitoring, and $300,000 for fiscal year 2027 to support the IIHR water sensor network managed through the University of Iowa. That system provides invaluable real-time data about nitrate levels.
Senate Republicans changed the proposal at the last minute on Saturday afternoon. Instead of allocating $300,000 to the University of Iowa for water monitoring, that money will also go to the DNR. Researchers at the university will have to apply for a grant.
U.S. House ends DHS shutdown, approves Farm Bill
We had time for a couple of stories from Congress, where the longest shutdown at a federal agency ended last week. The House of Representatives accepted a deal to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security through September 30. Republicans will try to pass a separate funding measure for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, using the budget reconciliation process to get around the 60-vote threshold for most policy bills in the Senate.
All four Iowa representatives—Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn, and Randy Feenstra—voted for the DHS funding deal, which the House could have approved way back in March.
Last Thursday, all of the Iowans joined most House Republicans to approve a new Farm Bill—more than two and a half years behind schedule. (The 2018 Farm Bill has been extended several times beyond its original expiration date in September 2023.)
The House bill locks in $187 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance cuts, as last year’s budget reconciliation bill envisioned.
Miller-Meeks, Hinson, Nunn, and Feenstra wisely voted for an amendment to remove pesticide immunity language from the Farm Bill.
But the Iowans weren’t happy when House leaders took out a provision authorizing year-round sales of the higher ethanol blend known as E-15. Congressional reporters heard Nunn shouting at House Speaker Mike Johnson. After some negotiations, House leaders agreed to schedule a vote on E-15 as a stand-alone measure on May 13. (I wouldn’t bet on that passing.)
Remember, year-round E-15 would already be part of federal law if President-elect Trump and his billionaire buddy Elon Musk had not blown up a spending bill Congress was slated to pass in December 2024.
We’re going to hear more about part of the Farm Bill inspired by Hinson’s “Save our Bacon” act. She touts it as protecting livestock producers against California regulations on cage sizes. But Democrats are already arguing the provision is a “gift” to Chinese-owned Smithfield foods.
It’s definitely a plus for the Iowa delegation that the House approved a Farm Bill. But it’s not likely to get through the Senate in its current form.
Three Republicans debate on Iowa PBS
Last Tuesday, Iowa PBS hosted a televised debate for Republicans running for governor. But only three candidates—Brad Sherman, Eddie Andrews, and Adam Steen—agreed to participate. If you missed the debate, you can find the video and transcript on the Iowa PBS website.
It was no surprise that Feenstra declined the invitation, since he’s skipped every multi-candidate debate or forum. Ironically, he had a good excuse last week, as the House was voting on important legislation in Washington.
I was surprised Zach Lahn sat this one out, and I think that was a huge mistake. He is angling to become the main alternative to Feenstra, and in that vein, he argued that any debate without Feenstra is a “farce.” But the reality is, he gave Steen a free shot at consolidating the anti-Feenstra vote.
The questions were perfect for Lahn: moderators asked about electability, education, abortion, cancer, water quality, data centers, and protections for ag chemical manufacturers. Those are all topics Lahn regularly discusses at his own town hall meetings. Steen dodged a question about whether he would sign a pesticide immunity bill, and Lahn wasn’t there to tout his own position.
Dave Price, Kathie Obradovich, and I also discussed the Republican debate on the latest Iowa Down Ballot podcast.
It looks like there won’t be any more GOP gubernatorial debates. WHO-TV has canceled a debate planned for May 9 after being unable to get all five candidates to commit to it. Steen had urged the station not to cancel the event, and held a news conference on Monday slamming the front-runner: “Randy continually demonstrates how DC has disconnected him from Iowa. The congressman is clearly not ready to lead, and he’s not ready to win.”
WHO-TV is offering the candidates individual interviews to outline their vision. A debate would be more useful for drawing out each one’s strengths and weaknesses.
Speaking of the Republican race for governor, I need to correct the record on one point. During last week’s show, I said Steen and Lahn were the only candidates to speak at all four GOP district conventions on April 25. They both intended to do so, but Steen didn’t make it to Storm Lake in time to speak to fourth district delegates. So Lahn was the only candidate to address all four conventions. Those delegates could select the nominee, if no one receives 35 percent of the vote in the June 2 primary.
Republican poll of IA-03 released
Last Wednesday, Punchbowl was first to report on a batch of polls commissioned by Republicans in battleground U.S. House districts, including Iowa’s third. Ragnar Research Partners conducted the polls in mid-March for a group called Conservatives For America. I posted the polling memo for IA-03 here. I recommend clicking through, because there’s lots more data in it than we had time to discuss on the air.
The good news for Republicans is that Nunn leads Democratic challenger Sarah Trone Garriott by 48 percent to 42 percent, and Republicans lead the generic ballot by 44 percent to 43 percent. President Donald Trump is only slightly underwater, with 47 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. All of those numbers sound fairly optimistic for the GOP.
Nunn’s approval is also underwater (37 percent approve/41 percent disapptove), and since he’s better known than Trone Garriott, she has more room to grow her support.
The pollster observed that Nunn “is viewed favorably by the GOP base, but has some room for improvement to make with them.” I believe that’s why Vice President JD Vance was dispatched to campaign with Nunn today.
Democratic poll points to competitive race in IA-02
Lindsay James, one of three Democrats running for Congress in Iowa’s second district, released a poll last Thursday showing her slightly ahead of Joe Mitchell, the likely Republican nominee. The Democratic firm Public Policy Polling conducted the survey in mid-April.
The sample was not skewed toward Democrats: 52 percent of respondents said they had voted for Trump in 2024, while 42 percent said they had voted for Kamala Harris. That’s comparable to Trump’s 10-point margin in the district. But Trump’s approval was just 45 percent in this poll, while 51 percent disapproved of his work.
James led Mitchell by 36 percent to 33 percent in the first ballot test. After respondents heard descriptions of both candidates, she led by 43 percent to 35 percent.
The James campaign provided the questionnaire on my request. I didn’t have time to read the candidate descriptions on the air, but here they are:
Lindsay James is a State Representative, an ordained Presbyterian chaplain, and a working mom. Lindsay first ran for office because she felt called to do more for her neighbors and community, such as fighting to lower healthcare costs and standing up for people against predatory corporations. She’s running for Congress because she believes that working Iowans shouldn’t have to make impossible financial choices; they should have someone on their side fighting for them in D.C. […]
Joe Mitchell is a real estate developer who previously worked in the Trump administration. Before that, he served in the Iowa Legislature. He’s running for Congress to be a strong voice for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and economic growth. He will fight tirelessly for farmers, ethanol, and small businesses, defend the fight to life and the Second Amendment, and above all, stand with President Trump. Joe will never back down in the fight to keep Iowa strong and free for future generations.
IA-02 is an open seat because Hinson is running for Senate. The leading national election forecasters rate the race as “likely Republican,” but in my mind, it’s a lean Republican district. It’s also not a sure thing that James will be the Democratic nominee. I hope to see more polls of this district after the primary.
That’s all for now! We’ll be back next week with more coverage of the legislature’s work in 2026, along with JD Vance’s Iowa visit and the first televised debate between Zach Wahls and Josh Turek.
Great wrap up, Laura. Thank you.
Just curious, do you get combat pay for this?!
Thank you so much for your exhaustive reporting! (Exhausting for you, too!)