Iowa Senate Bill SF75

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/25
• Engrossed: 3/10/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to county supervisors, concerning county supervisor representation plans and county supervisor vacancies, and including effective date provisions. (Formerly SSB 1018.) Effective date: 04/10/2025.

Summary

SF 75 revises Iowa law governing county supervisor representation plans and vacancies. On the representation-plan side, it requires counties that contain the main campus of a state board of regents institution of higher learning to use plan three for electing supervisors. It also changes the timing and procedures for county special elections on representation plans, moving the election date from August to November in odd-numbered years, extending the deadline for completing a new districting plan, and clarifying when a county may change away from plan three. The bill also creates a transition process for counties newly required to use plan three. Those counties must form a temporary county redistricting commission, complete a precinct plan by a set deadline, and have a representation plan drawn and published for use in the 2026 general election. In addition, SF 75 changes vacancy-filling rules for county supervisors by tying the method of filling vacancies to county population and whether the county contains a regents university campus. Smaller counties without such a campus generally use appointment to fill vacancies, while larger counties and campus counties use special elections. The bill takes effect immediately upon enactment.

Impact

SF 75 amends multiple sections of the Iowa Code, including sections 331.206, 331.207, 331.201, 331.214, 43.6, and 69.14A. Its practical effect is to require certain counties—specifically those with the main campus of a state board of regents institution—to adopt plan three for supervisor elections and to follow new redistricting and election deadlines. It also changes how county supervisor vacancies are filled by distinguishing between counties under 125,000 population and larger counties or campus counties, shifting some vacancies to appointment and others to special election.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally advanced with support, as reflected by its passage in both chambers, but the vote history also shows meaningful opposition. The Senate Local Government Committee reported the bill 8-4, the Senate passed it 35-11, and the House passed it 65-33. That pattern suggests the measure had majority support but was not broadly unanimous, with some legislators objecting to the policy changes or their application to particular counties.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s targeted treatment of counties that host a state board of regents university campus and its changes to local election and vacancy procedures. Opponents likely objected to mandating plan three for those counties, altering the timing of special elections, and changing when vacancies are filled by appointment versus special election. The failed motions to suspend the rules for amendments H-1107 and H-1108 in the House indicate there was also disagreement over proposed amendments, though the available record does not specify their substance.