The Legacy Foundation

Poll Shows Iowans Favor Property Tax Relief For All, Even at Cost to Local Governments

Ken — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:01:29 +0000

February 14, 2012

Contact: Christopher Rants 712-490-8742

(DES MOINES)- A poll of Iowans between February 6 and 7, conducted for the Legacy Foundation, reveals that of the three property tax relief plans being considered in the general assembly, Iowans favor a proposal to provide a property tax cut for homeowners and businesses even if city and county governments see their tax collections shrink by a more than 2 to 1 margin over competing proposals that limit tax relief to businesses but protect local governments from revenue losses.

All demographic groups, including partisan affiliation, supported the proposal that provides property tax relief to homeowners and businesses even if city and county governments see their tax collections shrink. Registered Democrats, 47.6% to 26.2%, preferred it compared to a proposal that provides a tax credit to small businesses while protecting local government revenues. No Party voters preferred it 52.2% to 14%.

Support for a proposal to provide property tax relief to small and large businesses, but none to homeowners was viewed only slightly more favorably than the tax credit for small business proposal.

After describing each of the three competing proposals, each proposal was ranked on a scale of 1 being a very bad idea to 10 being an excellent idea. While all were viewed favorably, the broad based cut fared the best. The proposals were then compared against each other with the broad based cut gaining the majority of support.

If you had to pick one property tax proposal that would best help the State of Iowa improve its economy, would you choose proposal one which provides a property tax cut for all businesses and homeowners, but will be phased in over time, OR the second proposal which provides a property tax cut to all business owners, but no relief to homeowners, but will slow the rate of property tax growth on homeowners OR the third proposal which provides a tax credit to only small businesses no tax relief to homeowners, agriculture land or large businesses?

Proposal 1…………………….308 51.3%
Proposal 2…………………….121 20.2%
Proposal 3…………………….109 18.2%
Undecided…………………….62 10.3%

The first proposal provides a property tax cut for homeowners and businesses. Small businesses get their property tax cut first, and over a number of years larger businesses will receive their property tax cut. City and county governments will likely see their tax collections shrink under this plan.

Supporters say this is the only plan that gives everyone a property tax cut instead of targeting certain groups and it will grow our economy. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a very bad idea and 10 being an excellent idea, what do you think?

1………………………………………………………………………………45 7.5% 2………………………………………………………………………………10 1.7% 3………………………………………………………………………………32 5.3% 4………………………………………………………………………………31 5.2% 5…………………………………………………………………………….208 34.7% 6………………………………………………………………………………54 9.0% 7………………………………………………………………………………63 10.5% 8………………………………………………………………………………68 11.3% 9………………………………………………………………………………10 1.7% 10…………………………………………………………………………….79 13.2%

The second proposal provides a property tax cut to business owners – both large and small. It does not provide any property tax relief to homeowners, however it does slow the rate of tax increases on homes. Supporters say this plan gives businesses the best chance to grow and put Iowans back to work.

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a very bad idea and 10 being an excellent idea, what do you think?

1………………………………………………………………………………81 13.5% 2………………………………………………………………………………51 8.5% 3………………………………………………………………………………45 7.5% 4………………………………………………………………………………46 7.7% 5…………………………………………………………………………….156 26.0% 6………………………………………………………………………………52 8.7% 7………………………………………………………………………………51 8.5% 8………………………………………………………………………………64 10.7% 9………………………………………………………………………………11 1.8% 10…………………………………………………………………………….43 7.2%

The third proposal provides a tax credit to small businesses. It does not provide any property tax relief to homeowners, agriculture land, or large businesses. Supporters say this plan allows cities and counties to maintain important services while also providing a boost to small businesses.

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a very bad idea and 10 being an excellent idea, what do you think?

1………………………………………………………………………………99 16.5% 2………………………………………………………………………………46 7.7% 3………………………………………………………………………………70 11.7% 4………………………………………………………………………………54 9.0% 5…………………………………………………………………………….147 24.5% 6………………………………………………………………………………29 4.8% 7………………………………………………………………………………58 9.7%
8………………………………………………………………………………49 8.2%
9………………………………………………………………………………15 2.5%
10…………………………………………………………………………….33 5.5%

Full cross tabs on the questions and demographics may be downloaded at here.

The Legacy Foundation, a 501c3, was organized to educate the general public about concepts that advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited and accountable government. The Foundation also engages in independent, non-partisan research on public policy matters and initiatives. It does not support or endorse candidates for election. The Legacy Foundation was founded by Christopher Rants, a former legislator from Sioux City, who served as Speaker of the House from 2003 through 2006.

This is the first in a series of initiatives the Legacy Foundation will make in 2012 to educate the general public about policy debates pending before the Iowa Legislature.

The survey was conducted by Victory Enterprises, Inc. of Davenport, Iowa. Interviews were conducted by live operator. The survey consists of interviews from 600 likely voters in Iowa. Calls were completed on February 6-7, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.0% with a 95% confidence level. The survey was balanced by party, age, gender and geography. Registered Democrats made up 35% of the respondents; Republicans 34% and No-Party voters comprised 31%.

###

Poll Shows Iowans Oppose Fuel Tax Increase

Ken — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:01:07 +0000

February 13, 2012

Contact: Christopher Rants 712-490-8742
christopher@legacyfoundation.us

(DES MOINES)- A poll of Iowans between February 6 and 7, conducted for the Legacy Foundation, reveals that Iowans generally rate the condition of roads, highways and bridges as good (6.2% very good, 58.2% fairly good) and oppose a proposal to increase the gasoline tax by eight cents per gallon and increasing registration fees for new vehicle purchases (34.1% favor, 62.1% oppose).

The Legacy Foundation conducted a statewide poll of 600 Iowa registered voters on three topics that are currently being considered by the Iowa legislature. In addition to the fuel tax legislation, the proposals on voter verification and property taxes were also surveyed. The property tax results will be released on Tuesday.

There is a correlation between opinions on the quality of Iowa’s transportation infrastructure and support for a tax increase; with those viewing road conditions favorably being least likely to support raising the tax. However, even among those that rate Iowa’s infrastructure as poor, less than a majority, 45%, favor increasing the revenue to fund it. Full cross tabs on the questions and demographics may be downloaded here.

Overall, how would you rate the condition of the roads, highways and bridges here in Iowa? Would you say they are very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad?

Very Good 37 6.2%
Fairly Good 349 58.2%
Fairly Bad 153 25.5%
Very Bad 50 8.3%
Undecided 11 1.8%

Would you favor or oppose a proposal being discussed in the State Legislature to increase funding for road and highway improvements by increasing Iowa’s gasoline taxes by eight cents per gallon and increasing registration fees for new vehicle purchases?

Strongly Favor 74 12.3%
Somewhat Favor 131 21.8%
Total Favor 205 34.1%
Somewhat Oppose 143 23.8%
Strongly Oppose 230 38.3%
Total Oppose 373 62.1%
Undecided 22 3.7%

This is the first in a series of initiatives the Legacy Foundation will make in 2012 to educate the general public about policy debates pending before the Iowa Legislature.

###

Poll Shows Iowans Support Voter Verification

Ken — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:09 +0000

February 12, 2012

(DES MOINES)- A poll of Iowans between February 6 and 7, conducted for the Legacy Foundation, reveals that by a more than a 3 to 1 margin Iowans favor a proposal that voters show photo identification before being allowed to vote.

The Legacy Foundation conducted a statewide poll of 600 Iowa registered voters on three topics that are currently being considered by the Iowa legislature. In addition to voter verification proposals, the proposals on fuel taxes and property taxes were also surveyed. Those results will be released on Monday and Tuesday.

Support for the three voter verification initiatives was strong across all demographic categories including party affiliation. Among Democrats 59.5% favored the photo identification proposal to 35.7% opposed. Republicans favored 85.8% to 10.8%. Among registered No-Party voters 83.9% to 13.4%. Full cross tabs on the questions and demographics may be downloaded here.

Should voters be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote?
Yes 456 76.0%
No 122 20.3%
Undecided 22 3.7%

Should people be required to prove US citizenship before being allowed to register to vote?
Yes 514 85.7%
No 63 10.5%
Undecided 23 3.8%

Do you support or oppose requiring the verification of a voter’s signature before counting his or her mail-in absentee ballot?
Support 417 69%
Oppose 123 20.5%
Undecided 60 10.0%

This is the first in a series of initiatives the Legacy Foundation will make in 2012 to educate the general public about policy debates pending before the Iowa Legislature.

###

Judge rules Md. redistricting challenge should go forward

Ken — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:45:29 +0000

By Aaron C. Davis, Washington Post

A group of African Americans seeking to overturn Maryland’s congressional map on grounds that Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and the state legislature racially gerrymandered lines to help elect Democrats won an initial victory in court Monday.

U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus rebuffed an argument to dismiss the case from Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) and sided with the group that a three-judge panel should be seated to hear the case.

Titus said he would immediately notify the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The chief judge could still decide not to grant a three-judge panel, but the development suggested the state may have to fully justify its map before the court.

Opponents of new congressional redistricting win first round in lawsuit

Ken — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:23:34 +0000

By Glynis Kazanjian, Maryland Reporter

The federal judge overseeing the first round of legal arguments on the lawsuit challenging Maryland’s congressional redistricting quickly ruled Monday against the state’s motion to dismiss and assigned the case to a three-judge panel.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus of Greenbelt ruled that he disagreed with the state’s argument that the suit should be dismissed because it was without merit.

“The Court finds that the Complaint’s constitutional claims are substantial and that the convening of a three-judge court is appropriate,” Titus stated in Monday’s opinion.

Titus also ruled that there was no legal precedence in the 4th Circuit, which includes Maryland, to give a single district judge the authority to make such a determination, as the state argued.

Iowa group to fund suit against Maryland’s congressional map

Ken — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:59:09 +0000

By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun

An Iowa-based foundation is financing a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn Maryland’s new congressional map on the grounds that it unconstitutionally splits minority communities.

Christopher Rants, a Republican former speaker of the Iowa House who heads the Legacy Foundation, confirmed that the group is paying for the legal challenge, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

“When I saw the maps, I was just incredulous,” Rants said in a telephone interview. “We don’t do things like that out here.”

The foundation — which has previously defended Arizona’s contentious immigration law — was created to “advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government,” according its website.

The lawsuit, organized by a Prince George’s County political action committee, alleges that Gov. Martin O’Malley and the Democratic controlled General Assembly drew congressional districts that broke apart black neighborhoods to benefit white Democratic candidates.

Ex-Supreme Court justice calls Md. redistricting ‘outrageously unconstitutional’

Ken — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:08:20 +0000

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling Maryland’s recent congressional redistricting “outrageously unconstitutional,” and says that his inability to persuade the other justices to overturn partisan gerrymandering like it was “one of my major disappointments in my entire career.”

Stevens, 91, who retired last year after almost 35 years on the court, said the Supreme Court’s “failure to act in this area is one of the things that has contributed to the much greater partisanship in legislative bodies now that wasn’t true years ago.”

Stevens was interviewed for SCOTUSBlog by a former court clerk about the justice’s new book “Five Chiefs.” The interview was published Thursday, and ProPublica reported on his gerrymandering comments Monday.

Deep in the long interview, the former clerk, Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher, asked Stevens: “how you would envision the Court getting involved in something as crass and divisive as partisan gerrymandering while maintaining the public perception of political independence.

Stevens responded, “Well it goes back to the fundamental equal protection principle that government has the duty to be impartial. When it’s engaged in districting, it should be impartial.

Border Sheriffs Amicus Curiae Brief to the Supreme Court

Ken — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:44:22 +0000

The following is an Amicus Curiae Brief that attorneys for the Border Sheriffs Project submitted to the US Supreme Court.