2026 Voter Guide: Iowa House District 40
Updated: 2 days ago
Election: November 3, 2026 | Live. Work. Thrive.: Education, Essential Needs and Economic Opportunity
Iowa House District 40 includes Altoona, part of northeastern Des Moines and surrounding Polk County communities. Voters will choose between incumbent Bill Gustoff (Republican) and Heather Sievers (Democrat). The candidates previously competed for this seat in 2024.
What does a State Representative do?
Iowa House members serve two-year terms, introduce and vote on legislation, and help determine the state budget. Their decisions affect school funding, taxation, healthcare, transportation, environmental protection and other services.
Meet the candidates
Bill Gustoff | Republican
Gustoff is an attorney who earned his law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law. He was first elected to the Iowa House in 2022 and is serving his second term.
His reported public-service experience includes membership on a local school board earlier in life and service with Habitat for Humanity of Iowa, the Iowa State Bar Association and other organizations. His political background includes service on the Republican Party of Iowa State Central Committee and as party treasurer.
His campaign emphasizes economic growth, individual liberties, taxes, parental involvement in education and oversight of government spending.
Heather Sievers | Democrat
Sievers is a registered nurse and patient-care navigation advocate who works with people facing complex medical and socioeconomic needs. She holds master's degrees in clinical nurse leadership from the University of Iowa and counseling psychology from Naropa University.
She has been elected to the Heartland Area Education Agency Board of Directors and founded Advocates for Iowa's Children, an education-policy advocacy organization. She was also the Democratic candidate for House District 40 in 2024.
Her campaign emphasizes public-school resources, healthcare affordability, special education, water quality and workforce development.
Compare their documented 2026 positions
1. Public-school funding and teacher pay
Bill Gustoff: Supports what he describes as accountable public-school funding, teacher compensation, parental involvement and classroom discipline. He identifies his role in advancing teacher-pay legislation as part of his record and supports preparing students for education or employment after graduation.
Heather Sievers: Proposes increasing public-school funding, improving teacher and staff compensation, expanding full-day preschool and strengthening special education, behavioral supports and school nutrition.
Both candidates identify teacher compensation and school performance as important. Gustoff emphasizes measures taken during his legislative service and school accountability; Sievers identifies additional investments and services she would pursue.
2. Education savings accounts and Area Education Agencies
Gustoff: Has supported the state's education savings account approach and emphasizes parent choice. The education savings account program was established by House File 68 in 2023. His individual vote and the details of subsequent education bills should be checked against the official House Journal before being described as independently verified voting actions.
Sievers: Calls for increased accountability over education savings accounts and argues that public education resources should be prioritized. Her service on the Heartland AEA board informs her advocacy for education services, including special education.
The candidates describe different priorities for education savings accounts. Their statements do not specify identical new funding formulas or complete statutory amendments.
3. Income taxes, property taxes and the state budget
Gustoff: Supports Iowa's movement toward lower, flatter individual income-tax rates. He favors property-tax reforms intended to increase predictability and transparency. On state revenue, he argues that the Taxpayer Relief Fund was established to help manage anticipated reductions while tax changes take effect.
Sievers: Calls for tax relief focused on middle-class households and local businesses while maintaining revenue for public services. She criticizes the distributional effects of the flat income-tax structure and proposes reviewing corporate tax responsibilities and spending on private-school vouchers.
Gustoff supports the current direction of income-tax changes, while Sievers proposes a different balance of tax relief and public revenue. Neither provided a complete replacement state budget in the reviewed questionnaire.
4. Healthcare affordability
Gustoff: Emphasizes economic conditions and state budgeting. His candidate questionnaire focuses more directly on cancer research, prevention measures and insurance protections for certain groups than on a comprehensive replacement healthcare-financing proposal.
Sievers: Proposes expanding affordable health insurance, strengthening accountability for insurers' coverage decisions and improving access to preventive care. She also identifies paid family leave and childcare affordability as workforce concerns.
Sievers provides more specific healthcare-affordability proposals in the reviewed questionnaire. A corresponding detailed insurance-system proposal from Gustoff was not identified in that questionnaire; this absence should not be interpreted as opposition to a particular healthcare proposal.
5. Cancer and water quality
Gustoff: Identifies the importance of research to determine contributing factors. He points to state investments in cancer research, radon measures, cancer-related coverage and water infrastructure. His campaign's reported spending and funding figures should be distinguished from independently verified program expenditures.
Sievers: Proposes increased access to preventive healthcare and cancer-related vaccines, improved water and soil health, and access to nutritious food. She also links environmental protection with healthcare access.
Both favor addressing cancer concerns and water quality. Gustoff emphasizes research and programs associated with the current Legislature; Sievers emphasizes access, prevention and environmental improvements.
6. Eminent domain and carbon-capture pipelines
Gustoff: Says eminent domain should be limited to public use and require just compensation. He states that the proposed carbon-capture pipeline does not meet his understanding of a valid public use.
Sievers: Opposes using eminent domain for private gain and specifically opposes compulsory acquisition of land for privately developed carbon-capture pipelines.
Both candidates express opposition to eminent domain for the proposed private pipeline project, although their explanations emphasize different legal and policy considerations.
Gustoff's existing legislative record
Gustoff has served in the Iowa House since 2023. Legislative records allow voters to examine bills considered during his tenure, committee work and individual roll-call votes.
House File 68 established Iowa's education savings account program in 2023. Iowa's teacher-pay legislation and 2024 AEA restructuring are also relevant to this race.
A bill's passage does not establish any one legislator's vote. Where Gustoff describes his role in passing legislation, those campaign statements should be attributed unless a specific journal record or bill history independently establishes his role.
Sievers has served on an AEA board but has not held a seat in the Iowa Legislature. Her positions describe actions she proposes to take if elected, rather than a record of state legislative votes.
Evidence limitations
The reviewed sources do not establish a complete fiscal estimate for either candidate's proposed education, healthcare or tax policies. Some spending totals in candidate questionnaires are campaign-reported and require separate confirmation before being presented as independently measured program outcomes.
Original sources and further reading
Research and editorial note
This NAACP Des Moines Branch guide is provided for nonpartisan voter education. It does not endorse, oppose, grade or rank candidates. Published campaign claims are distinguished from official legislative records.
Research review updated: October 31, 2026.
Comments