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

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Iowa Senate

Iowa Senate District 1

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

39% chance of a Democratic win · Christopher Prosch (R), Catelin Drey (D)

Iowa Senate District 1: ForecastIowa Senate 7: chance of a Democratic win <1%Nebraska Nebraska Legislature 17: not up in 2026 (held by republican)South Dakota Senate 17: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+19Iowa Senate District 1: ForecastSD 17NE 1771
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 1 is competitive. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Republicans. 2 of them are across the state line.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win39%
Likely margin (80% range)R+13 to D+9, middle R+2
CandidatesChristopher Prosch (R), Catelin Drey (D)
Candidate list fromofficial
Current memberCatelin Drey

How it has voted

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

Legislature 2022R+10
Governor 2022R+23
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtIowa
Median household income$63,300$73,147
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)20%31%
Median age3539
White (not Hispanic)60%83%
Black5%4%
Hispanic25%7%
Asian3%2%
Born abroad14%6%
Jobs in manufacturing21%15%
Jobs in farming or mining2%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.