Are the proposed amendments the same as current state statutes?
No. A provision by provision comparison shows several substantive differences. First, there are no provisions in current Iowa laws or legislative experience for requiring the 60 percent super majority vote of the General Assembly for passing state tax increases. Second, the proposed constitutional process for accessing the “rainy day” funds created by the 99 percent expenditure limit is different from the current process in Iowa laws. The current law requires a 60 percent majority vote of the members of both houses to access cash reserves when they fall below 3 percent of estimated revenue. The constitutional amendment proposal is more restrictive and requires a 60 percent majority vote of the members of both houses to access the surplus funds when they fall below 10 percent of estimated revenue. The constitutional amendment proposal does not require declaration of an emergency as required in the Iowa Code. The constitutional amendment proposal does not require the governor’s signature
Related Questions
- When is a state agency required to submit a copy of proposed rules, amendments to rules, or rescissions of rules to the Missouri Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board?
- What effect did the 1984 amendments to the LHWCA have on the question of whether relief should be under state workmans compensation statutes or the LHWCA?
- Does UCITA alter a states digital or electronic signature statutes?
