Will Voters Say Yes? Inside the Politics of Knoxville’s Sales Tax Referendum
The outcome will reveal more about Knoxville’s political landscape than its finances.
This Tuesday, City of Knoxville voters will determine the fate of Mayor Indya Kincannon’s proposal to increase the local option sales tax to fund a range of legislative priorities, from affordable housing to new sidewalks and road paving. If approved, the sales tax rate within the city would increase from 9.25% to 9.75% — generating an estimated $47 million in additional tax revenue each year, or roughly $235 million over the next five years.
With Election Day approaching, here are a few observations about the politics of the sales tax referendum—and how the vote might turn out.
A Stronger-Than-Expected Pro-Tax Campaign
By most conventional measures, the campaign in support of the tax increase—operating under the banner Neighbors for Knoxville—has been surprisingly strong, despite having been launched just a few months ago. The group has run a message-focused, data-driven campaign emphasizing that the revenue would stay local and fund visible improvements to city infrastructure. Their pitch frames the tax as an investment in the city’s future and overall quality of life.
Unlike the campaign in support of the recent city charter amendment, which relied on endorsements from city officials, and failed narrowly in 2024, the pro-tax campaign has embraced a more bottom-up approach, seeking endorsements from everyday citizens. Its social media feeds have been filled with dozens of short, testimonial-style videos and posts: small business owners, teachers, retirees, and community leaders explaining why they support the measure in their own words. In my opinion, this has been the most effective aspect of the pro-tax campaign. By broadening the cast of messengers and grounding the campaign in personal stories, the messaging comes across as approachable and relentlessly local—and that authenticity may be its greatest asset.
But a well-crafted message can only go so far if voters don’t quite know what it’s attached to. In what is, in my view, a major strategic error, the pro-tax group has leaned heavily into messaging eliciting support for the Neighborhood Investment Plan—i.e., the plan outlining how additional tax revenue would be spent—sometimes distributing materials that don’t even mention the words “sales tax” at all. While it’s understandable to feel uneasy about leading with a tax increase—an issue that naturally invites skepticism—the ballot itself asks voters whether they are for or against raising the sales tax, not whether they support a neighborhood investment plan. The approach is most evident in the group’s yard signs, which say “Vote FOR Knoxville” but make no mention of the “referendum” or “sales tax.”
Inevitably, there will be voters who do not make the connection between the two. This is a particular risk among those who vote regularly but only casually follow local politics—a not insignificant share of the electorate. As a fellow local politico said to me a few weeks ago, “You definitely live in a bubble if you know what the neighborhood investment plan is.”
By focusing so heavily on how the money would be spent, the campaign has made a clear case for what the tax would fund—but hasn’t necessarily answered the “why now” part of the “why this, why now?” question. Knoxville’s finances are relatively stable, and the city is not facing a fiscal cliff or looming crisis. Supporters have argued that the city’s needs are urgent and the costs of delay high, but that argument hasn’t always been front and center in their messaging. In an economic climate still defined by inflation and cost-of-living pressures, persuading voters that this is the right moment—not just the right idea—is a tough sell.
Outside of messaging, the pro-tax campaign has trounced its opposition in fundraising, bringing in over $120,000 since July. However, the massive fundraising haul is hardly a sign of widespread grassroots enthusiasm. Six individual donors accounted for more than 80%—or roughly $100,000—of that total, including a $50,000 contribution from philanthropist and real estate developer Phil Lawson. Of course, money is money regardless of its origins. But the fundraising total—though noteworthy—really doesn’t tell us much, if anything, about support for the referendum among the typical voter.
The Opposition Has An Easier Task
Opposition groups, while less organized and far less resourced, have found traction with a simple, intuitive counter message: that Knoxville already has the tools it needs, and that a tax hike would disproportionately burden working families. And in the wake of the steepest inflation in forty years, that argument has power. Recent survey data by Gallup and others show a majority of Americans believe their financial situation is getting worse, and nearly every measure of consumer sentiment is near an all-time low.
While there has been little coordinated spending on the “no” side—likely less than $40,000 once all is said and done—skepticism often requires no campaign at all. Sometimes inertia is the most powerful opposition of all.
Still, opponents haven’t been uniformly effective in how they’ve framed their case. Some have focused their criticism on the spending plan itself—a tactical misstep, given that most of what the new revenue would fund is broadly popular. Few Knoxville voters object to paving roads, building sidewalks, or investing in affordable housing. The more pertinent question—and the one that truly animates this debate—is whether raising the sales tax is the right vehicle to fund those priorities, and whether now is the right time to do so.
In that sense, some opponents have undercut their own argument. To the extent that they’ve dismissed initiatives like affordable housing as unnecessary, they risk alienating voters who agree on the ends, even if they disagree on the means. The most compelling case against the referendum isn’t that the city’s goals are misplaced—it’s that the method and the timing is.
Higher-Than-Expected Turnout So Far
Early voting has been modestly higher than in past elections, which tends to benefit the opposition. “No” voters show up; “yes” voters have to be mobilized. That’s the structural reality the pro-tax campaign is up against.
So, in that sense, the higher-than-expected voter turnout so far isn’t exactly good news for proponents, as the uptick is likely attributable to more voters showing up to vote against the tax increase. Voters seldomly get excited to vote in favor of higher taxes, even when the revenue would fund things they care about. After all, there’s a reason why most politicians across the country—including Democrats and progressives—run campaigns premised on lowering taxes on the middle-class.
Even if the higher turnout is being driven by more centrist or left-leaning voters—those most amenable to supporting a tax increase—the pro-tax camp still faces a practical challenge: the ballot question itself. As required by state law, the question offers no context about how the new revenue would be used. It simply reads:
“Shall the two and one-quarter percent (2.25%) local option sales tax rate currently levied throughout Knox County be increased to two and three-quarters percent (2.75%) in the City of Knoxville?”
That matters a lot. Most voters are instinctively wary of raising taxes, particularly when they’re asked to approve a tax increase without knowing how the additional revenue would be spent. Indeed, one of the central arguments from proponents is that context changes minds: ‘once voters learn what the revenue would support, they’re far more likely to think the tax increase is a good idea and worth voting for.’ But that requires reaching voters before they get to the ballot box. Higher turnout, then, means the campaign must reach more voters in a limited amount of time. That’s why higher turnout—even if skewed toward a generally favorable voter base—is a downside risk for the pro-tax effort.
Should the referendum fail, it will be fair to question why the proposal wasn’t introduced earlier, when a longer runway might have allowed for a more effective campaign.
By The Numbers: A Narrow Path-to-Victory
Over the past five years, I’ve been involved in numerous polls examining city voters’ views on a wide range of policy issues. Whether surveying residents, registered voters, or likely voters, the political makeup of the city electorate has remained remarkably stable: roughly 55% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 15% independent.
If that distribution still holds—and recent election results suggest it does—the sales tax referendum will likely need the support of at least two-thirds of Democrats, a majority of independents, and around 15% of Republicans in order to pass. And even then, the proposal could still fall short.
That’s why, for all the ground the campaign has gained, the underlying math remains daunting. While garnering the support of two-thirds of Democrats is usually a forgone conclusion for a Democrat-aligned issue in the city, the sales tax referendum has elicited a significant amount of progressive pushback, driven by concerns that the increase is regressive and would fall hardest on lower-income households—concerns that have also featured prominently in the anti-tax messaging from the political right. Supporters counter that argument by noting the proposal doesn’t apply to groceries, making it less regressive than critics claim. It’s a fair and factual point, but politically, it’s a defensive one—and in any campaign, you rarely win the argument when you’re playing defense.
That tension makes the referendum somewhat unusual: opposition isn’t limited to predictable ideological lines. Conservatives oppose the measure as government overreach; progressives see it as inequitable; and more moderate voters aren’t at all motivated. The campaign’s challenge, then, is not simply to sell the benefits of new revenue, but to persuade a skeptical electorate that this particular tool—an increase in the sales tax—is both necessary and fair.
The Final Days
As Election Day approaches, the pro-tax campaign is hoping its closing message—one focused on local control and tangible benefits—will resonate with enough moderate and independent voters to overcome a reflexive resistance to raising taxes. But money and a robust ground game can only carry a campaign so far.
What seems to be missing is enthusiasm. Public opposition has been limited—a few yard signs and not much in the way of an organized campaign—but there also hasn’t been a groundswell of passion in support of measure either. The pro-tax campaign has managed to make its case, but with a short runway, it remains to be seen whether they’ve convincingly answered the question: why this, and why now?
That’s the paradox of politics: you can make a logical argument, but winning often requires an emotional one. And “trust us with more money” rarely stirs the soul. In a low-turnout environment, that apathy can—and likely will—prove fatal.
If the referendum passes, it will mark one of the most significant political victories in the city’s history—and I’ll be the first to admit the pro-tax campaign defied the odds. If it fails, it will have been the confluence of a campaign afforded too little time it make its case, an overzealous attempt to raise taxes in a faltering economy, and the enduring difficulty of asking voters to tax themselves.
Either way, Tuesday’s outcome will reveal more about Knoxville’s political landscape than its finances.