John Gilbert said he is voting on Iowa Amendment 1 like his life depends on it. He farms along South Fork with a brother, a son, and their wives, and he says the ballot measure reaches beyond taxes because it would make future income tax increases much harder to approve.
“I’m certain I’m not the only one voting like my life depends on it.” “Quite literally, here in Iowa it does,” Gilbert said. The measure would require a two-thirds super majority of the legislature to approve any income tax increase, while leaving tax cuts untouched.
John Gilbert and South Fork
Gilbert farms with his family along South Fork, a tributary of the Iowa River. He and his family raise non-GMO row crops, small grains, forages, cattle, and antibiotic free pigs they sell to Niman Ranch. He is also a volunteer with the Southfork Watershed Alliance and is active in Practical Farmers of Iowa and the Iowa Farmers Union.
The farm has been recognized for its work toward sustainability. Gilbert used that setting to argue that Iowa’s degraded water and record high cancer rates are impossible to ignore, and that no item on the ballot has a more direct impact on water quality and cancer than Amendment 1.
Constitutional Amendment 1
Before Iowa voters weighed the question, Republicans had already made significant cuts to the state income tax and made the rate the same for all income levels, creating a flat tax. The proposal now asks voters to lock in a higher hurdle for any future increase, not for a tax cut.
That distinction matters for what comes next in the legislature. A super-super majority is not required to cut taxes, only to raise them, so any future move to collect more income tax revenue would need support from two-thirds of lawmakers rather than a simple majority.
Water quality and cancer
Gilbert linked the ballot question to spending needs the source says will not go away. It says significant public investments will be required to improve water quality, and that raising taxes would be next to impossible if Iowa passes Amendment 1.
He put the choice bluntly: “A “NO” vote is a vote for better water quality, for keeping thousands of Iowans from suffering with cancer, and for having a future that doesn’t include a bottom-of-the-barrel economy.” He also said, “It’s another example of the wealthy not wanting to share.”
Gilbert closed with a broader idea of public responsibility: “to whom much is given, much is expected.” For voters, the practical choice on Iowa Amendment 1 is whether to make future income tax increases harder to enact, even as the state faces the water and health costs Gilbert says require money.
