Wayne Ford is the executive director of Wayne Ford Equity Impact Institute and co-Director of the Brown and Black Forums of America. He is a former member of the Iowa legislature (1997 through 2010) and the founder and former executive director of Urban Dreams.
A marathon session—and a moment to reflect
The Iowa legislature’s 2026 session concluded on May 3 after more than 36 hours of debate, negotiation, and decision-making in its final stretch. Lawmakers pushed through a marathon finish before adjourning for the year.
It is a familiar scene in legislatures across America: long nights, complex bills, and final votes made under pressure.
Many legislators acknowledged they were exhausted. Journalists noted some sleeping in the chamber or other signs of fatigue.
And yet, within those final hours, lawmakers were making some of their most important decisions of the year, affecting property rights, taxes, and community stability.
This is not a criticism of the individuals involved. It is a reflection on the system itself.
Because when we step back and look at it plainly, a simple question emerges: Would we accept this in any other field?
A question of standards
Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you after being awake for more than 36 hours?
Would you trust a pilot to make life-and-death decisions under those same conditions?
In most professions, the answer is clear. We would not accept it. The stakes are too high.
Yet in public policy making, we do.
At the very moment when decisions become most critical—when bills must be finalized, compromises reached, and votes taken—the process often demands that lawmakers operate under extreme fatigue.
Research on sleep deprivation has shown that extended wakefulness reduces attention, slows reaction time, and impairs judgment. After roughly 24 hours without sleep, cognitive performance can resemble impairment levels associated with alcohol intoxication.
Again, my point is not to criticize legislators. It is to recognize that the system places them in conditions where decision-making becomes more difficult.
The real issue: not effort, but impact
The end of the latest legislative session in Iowa also revealed something else. Even with all that effort and time, some issues remained unresolved, like restrictions on eminent domain for pipelines.
At the same time, property tax reform generated was debated in both chambers, with lawmakers grappling with long-term consequences for cities, counties, and taxpayers.
These are not simple issues. They involve complex trade-offs:
- Financial sustainability
- Property rights
- Economic development
- Community impact
When those decisions are made under fatigue, with large amounts of information but limited clarity, the challenge becomes even greater.
The problem is not a lack of effort or a lack of information.
The problem is a lack of clear, structured impact.
Iowa’s lesson: When impact is visible, decisions improve
Iowa took a step in 2008 that would later prove to be nationally significant. By requiring a racial impact analysis for certain criminal justice legislation, the state ensured that lawmakers had a clearer understanding of who would be affected before making decisions.
This was not about politics. It was about clarity.
We saw a real-time example this past weekend. House Republicans’ bill on enhanced criminal sentencing, which became House File 2542, initially called for significantly longer mandatory minimums, and included a wide range of offenses in the formula. structures. As lawmakers examined the potential fiscal impact—costs to the prison system, population effects, and long-term consequences—the conversation evolved. Senate and House Republicans negotiated over changes.
What began as a proposal with sentences approaching twenty years shifted toward a framework closer to seven years, with acknowledgment that alternatives could also be considered.
That shift happened because people had more information—clearer information about impact.
Organizations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Urban Institute have documented similar outcomes nationwide when legislators considered impact statements.
Property taxes: Decisions that shape communities
The debate over property taxes illustrates the broader challenge. The issue is often framed simply—whether taxes should go up or down. But the real question is more complex.
What happens to cities and counties if revenue is reduced? How are essential services maintained? What happens to infrastructure, public safety, and long-term stability?
These are impact questions.
The Congressional Budget Office provides fiscal analysis to help answer such questions about pending federal legislation. But cost alone does not capture the full picture.
Still searching for clarity on eminent domain
Iowa lawmakers adjourned without any Senate floor vote on eminent domain during the 2026 session. That is telling.
Without clear impact analysis, these debates can become difficult to resolve. Positions harden. Perspectives differ. And decisions become harder to reach.
But with clearer understanding—who is affected, what the alternatives are, and what the long-term consequences will be—the path forward becomes more visible.
Impact does not eliminate disagreement. It improves the quality of the discussion.
A lesson from TIF: When policy evolves without impact review
We have seen similar challenges in economic development through the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Originally designed to support disadvantaged communities (often called “slum and blighted areas,” TIF has expanded in Iowa, to be used for greenfield development in areas with stronger and growing tax bases.
In lower-income communities, the challenge often remains that the tax base is not sufficient to fully leverage the tool. In higher-growth areas, that same tool can generate significant resources.
The issue is not whether TIF is right or wrong.
The issue is whether we fully understood how its use would evolve over time. (Editor’s note from Laura Belin: The last-minute property tax agreement included some new limits on TIF, and local policy makers are currently evaluating the consequences.)
From confusion to clarity
Too often, public policy debates resemble the classic “Who’s on First?” routine by Abbott and Costello—everyone is talking, but confusion reigns.
Impact analysis provides a way forward. It helps answer the fundamental questions: who is affected, what it will cost, and what will happen next.
Across the country, there is growing recognition that policy making must move beyond information to impact. The National Conference of State Legislatures has documented increased use of tools designed to help lawmakers understand policy consequences before implementation.
But these efforts remain uneven.
Better conditions lead to better decisions
The lesson from the Iowa legislature’s 2026 session is clear. When impact is not fully understood, decisions become more difficult.
When impact is visible, decisions improve.
Even after long hours—more than 36 hours without a break—the quality of decisions can improve if the quality of information improves.
Because this is not about how long we stay awake.
It is about how well we understand the impact of the decisions we make.
And that is the lesson for the next 250 years of American lawmaking.