One Republican and three Democrats are running for Iowa House District 46.
The district includes parts of Dallas and Polk counties. Rep. Dan Gehlbach is the incumbent, serving since 2023 running for re-election and is unopposed for the Republican nomination.
Anne Michelle Craven, Erin Helleso and Mandy Newton Rosenow will compete in the June 2 primary for the Democratic party nomination.
To help voters, the Des Moines Register sent questions to all federal, state and Des Moines-area legislative candidates running for political office this year. Their answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Click below to see learn more about the candidates and where they stand on key issues:
| Bios | Top issue | Education | Taxes | Cancer rates | Eminent domain | Budget deficits |
Who is Dan Gehlbach?
Who is Anne Michelle Craven?
Who is Erin Helleso?
Who is Mandy Newton Rosenow?
What would be your top issue if elected?
Gehlbach (R): My top issue is continuing on the progress we have made on tax relief (including property taxes) and making Iowa a destination where folks want to live, work, raise a family, retire, and start a business.
Craven (D): I’m running to make Iowa more affordable and fair for working people. I’ll fight to lower costs, strengthen public schools, and expand healthcare, especially in low-income and rural areas. I believe in protecting personal freedoms and civil rights, including reproductive rights, and standing up for LGBTQ+ Iowans. I’m committed to clean air and water and environmental protections so that future Iowans can live safe and healthy lives. I also want to keep the government accountable to the people, not big corporations.
Helleso (D): Reform health care: I have spent much of my career working directly in healthcare, including my private practice. From 2015 to 2019, I worked at an MCO during Iowa’s Medicaid Managed Care transition, traveling the state to help providers adapt. That work, including fraud, waste and abuse investigations, showed how the system really functions. Managed care has added bureaucracy, delayed care, denied needed services and driven providers away. Iowans pay more while insurers profit, and patients are forced to leave the state for care. Iowa should be leading, not falling behind.
Rosenow (D): I want Iowa to be a place that people want to live — our economy needs to work well for Iowans and we need to have safe drinking water, a great education system and access to health care.
What policies would you support to improve Iowa’s education system?
Craven (D): My plan to improve education is focused on rebuilding Iowa’s public school system through stronger investment and support. I will fight to increase funding so schools have the resources they need and prioritize better pay and working conditions to attract and retain great teachers and support staff. I oppose the school voucher program, as it diverts public funds to private schools. Those dollars belong in our public classrooms. My goal is to restore Iowa’s reputation for high-quality education by strengthening public schools and ensuring every student has access to well-funded, quality schools.
Helleso (D): I support policies that fully fund Iowa’s public schools, restore funding for AEAs and trust educators with the autonomy to teach. Schools must be safe and trauma‑informed while maintaining academic rigor. Because vouchers are now embedded in Iowa’s system, I support strong accountability like audits, transparency, income limits and clear standards for any private school receiving public dollars. Public schools must not be weakened. I also support reasonable oversight of homeschooling to ensure children are safe and receiving an education. Proper funding is about priorities.
Rosenow (D): We need oversight and limits on the ESA system. There should be income caps, a capacity limit, and the ability to make sure students are receiving the education they deserve. We need to fund our schools appropriately; investing in education is the best thing our state can do for its current and future success. This includes serving the students who cannot thrive in a traditional school setting. We need to stop villainizing our teachers and librarians; they are doing the noble work of educating our children. Iowans can have disagreements without punishing those who do not agree with us.
Gehlbach (R): I am passionate about student achievement and have worked hard in the legislature to reform reading and math in the state. This session, I floor managed a reform for talented and gifted pathways. I will continue to put the focus on students and parents to get the best education for their families.
Do you support Iowa’s recent tax policy changes, including lowering income taxes, and what additional tax law changes would you support?
Helleso (D): Iowa’s shift to a 3.8% flat income tax may have simplified filing and lowered rates statewide, but it has also been a source for the major deficit Iowa is facing. Because higher earners receive larger dollar savings, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Policymakers and budget analysts have warned that relying more heavily on a single low rate could weaken revenue stability during economic downturns and limit the state’s long‑term capacity to sustain investments in education, health care, and infrastructure. We have now experienced this downturn firsthand, and it will continue without a change.
Rosenow (D): We need a graduated income tax in Iowa; we have already seen that the flat income tax is not meeting the state’s needs. Increasing the state sales tax puts a higher burden on our lower-income Iowans. We need to reevaluate our tax rates for large companies that are contributing to water and air pollution. Tax breaks given to corporations should also be tied to providing good-paying jobs for our citizens. Corporate tax breaks must be connected to a way that Iowans will benefit.
Gehlbach (R): Yes, I voted for the 3.8% flat income tax, eliminating income taxes on retirement income, halving the unemployment tax on businesses, and the current property tax reforms currently being discussed. I would continue to support legislation for more transparency and right-sizing the tax collections with our budget.
Craven (D): I don’t support Iowa’s recent shift toward lower, flatter income tax rates. While tax cuts can sound appealing, I’m concerned these changes disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Iowans and reduce the revenue we need for public schools, healthcare, and essential services. I believe in a fair and sustainable tax system where people contribute based on their ability to pay. Instead of broad cuts, I would support targeted relief for working and middle-class families who are feeling squeezed by rising costs. Any tax reforms should ensure corporations and top earners pay their fair share.
What actions would you support to address Iowa’s high cancer rates?
Rosenow (D): We need to actively look for areas of increased cancer risk. Our water and air quality need to be studied to see what chemicals are present, where they are coming from and how their impact on our health can be minimized. Improving access to radon testing and mitigation is also critical. Every person should have the chance to get appropriate cancer screening. Supporting research on lung cancer screening for those with radon exposure will allow us to improve our state’s health outcomes. We need to continue efforts to help Iowans make healthier choices as well.
Gehlbach (R): I support the continued funding of research, including a $3 million appropriation for pediatric cancer research in Iowa. I also supported radon mitigation efforts and studies to identify key risk factors for Iowa. Lung cancer is a major outlier for cancer rates in Iowa, and I would support increasing some taxes on tobacco products at a reasonable level.
Craven (D): I’m deeply concerned about Iowa’s high cancer rates, and I believe we need to treat this as the serious public health issue that it is. I support stronger protections for clean air and water, including reducing nitrate contamination and limiting exposure to harmful pesticides and PFAS. I would also push for funding our monitoring systems and transparency to the public. In addition, I support investing in cancer prevention, early screening and rural healthcare access. We also need stronger accountability for pollution, not just voluntary measures, to reduce risk and protect public health.
Helleso (D): I would support urgent action to reduce Iowa’s cancer rates by investing in prevention, early detection and accountability. That means expanding access to screening, strengthening environmental and public‑health protections related to Iowa’s radon and water quality, and using transparent data to guide action. Behind every statistic is a family member hearing, “You have cancer.” This is devastating news, and Iowa cannot accept this as normal. Lives depend on acting now and keeping providers in our state and treatment accessible and affordable.
When do you believe it is appropriate to use eminent domain, and should it be used to build carbon capture pipelines?
Gehlbach (R): I do not believe eminent domain should be used for carbon capture pipelines and have voted multiple times in the Iowa House to protect private property rights.
Craven (D): Eminent domain should only be used when there is a clear, demonstrated public benefit, no reasonable alternative, and fair, full compensation for landowners. Because it involves taking private property rights, it should be applied very narrowly and only as a last resort. For carbon capture pipelines, I would be very cautious about using eminent domain. While reducing emissions is important, these projects are typically driven by private companies and raise concerns about safety, transparency, and long-term effectiveness. Eminent domain should only be considered if truly necessary and unavoidable
Helleso (D): Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only for clear public necessities. Using it to force land access for a carbon pipeline benefiting private companies raises serious concerns about property rights and public trust. These projects should move forward through voluntary agreements that respect landowners, protect the environment, and ensure well‑paid union-supported jobs, rather than relying on forced land seizures.
Rosenow (D): It’s hard to justify eminent domain for activities where only an individual company or person will profit from it. Public use requests need to be examined individually. With regard to pipelines, we should look for compromises such as rerouting.
How would you remedy Iowa’s budget deficits driven by lost revenue? Are there certain services you would prioritize for cuts?
Craven (D): I would not start with cuts to essential services when addressing budget shortfalls. First, I would assess whether Iowa’s tax system is fair and sustainable and whether recent tax cuts have reduced necessary revenue. My priority is protecting core services like public education, healthcare, public safety and infrastructure. If changes are needed, I would focus on efficiency, reducing waste and reviewing tax policies that benefit high-income earners and large corporations. I support a balanced approach that protects working families and ensures stable, responsible funding for Iowa’s future.
Helleso (D): Iowa can remedy budget deficits by reclaiming revenue we already lose by eliminating the flat tax and legalizing recreational cannabis and medical psilocybin use. Illinois generated over $490 million in cannabis tax revenue in 2024, $385 million from out‑of‑state buyers, many from Iowa. Missouri now brings in nearly $70 million annually. Legalizing regulated recreational cannabis and medical psilocybin therapy would keep Iowa dollars in Iowa, fund schools, support healthcare, cancer research and veterans’ care, and strengthen the budget without cutting essential programs.
Rosenow (D): We need to return to a graduated income tax and stop giving tax breaks to corporations for data centers. These hurt our local economies and require increased property taxes to meet community needs. We need to return Medicaid to a state-managed system rather than a MCO system. Since its onset, costs have increased, access to care has gone down and there is overall less stability. We need to modify the ESA program — it has inadequate oversight, and is not sustainable the way it is. We need to explore new markets for crops and our farmers; when our farmers suffer, the state suffers.
Gehlbach (R): Iowa was seeing a $2 billion ending balance with a growing Taxpayer Relief Fund of over $4 billion in additional dollars. Plus, a nearly $1 billion rainy day fund. This amounts to overcollection of taxpayer dollars that need to be given back to hard-working Iowans. There have been headwinds from having to cover for Medicaid cuts, as well as for federal laws like the One Big Beautiful Bill. Even with those challenges, the budgets will continue to grow and spending will be kept in check as we line up tax collection with spending.
Read more about the midterm candidates at: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/news/elections/.
Nick El Hajj is a reporter at the Register. He can be reached at nelhajj@gannett.com. Follow him on X at @nick_el_hajj.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Hear Iowa House District 46 candidates on tax rates, budget deficits
Reporting by Nick El Hajj, Des Moines Register / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
