Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Iowa House

Iowa House District 73

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

Decided: only a Democrat is running · Elizabeth Wilson (D)

Iowa House District 73: Decided: only a Democrat is runningIowa House 74: chance of a Democratic win >99%; 2024 president D+17Iowa House 78: chance of a Democratic win >99%; 2024 president D+33Iowa House 83: chance of a Democratic win 3%; 2024 president R+11Iowa House District 73: Decided: only a Democrat is running74788373
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 73 is safe Democratic. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 2 favour Democrats, 1 favours Republicans.

StatusDecided: only a Democrat is running
CandidatesElizabeth Wilson (D)
Candidate list fromofficial
Current memberElizabeth Wilson

How it has voted

On its current lines. Legislative contests and the top-of-ticket vote inside the district.

Legislature 2022D+2
Governor 2022D+1
Legislature 2024uncontested (D)
President 2024D+7
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtIowa
Median household income$98,982$73,147
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)44%31%
Median age4139
White (not Hispanic)88%83%
Black3%4%
Hispanic3%7%
Asian2%2%
Born abroad3%6%
Jobs in manufacturing19%15%
Jobs in farming or mining1%4%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.