Bleeding Heartland is a community blog for Democrats and progressives in the state of Iowa. Join up, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, and help build up current majorities and keep our leadership honest.
In two cases that could affect married same-sex couples in Iowa, federal Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional today, Lisa Keen reported for Bay Windows. Regarding Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services,
Maura T. Healey, chief of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Civil Rights Division, told Judge Tauro that Section 3 of DOMA -- the section that limits the definition of marriage for federal benefits to straight couples -- violates the state's right under the federal constitution to sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents. Healey called DOMA an "animus-based national marriage law" that intrudes on core state authority and "forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens."
Christopher Hall, representing HHS, said Congress should be able to control the meaning of terms, such as "marriage," used in its own statutes, and should be able to control how federal money is allocated for federal benefits provided to persons based on their marital status. Tauro essentially replied that the government's power is not unlimited.
The other case was Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):
GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a "classic equal protection" violation, by taking one class of married people in Massachusetts and dividing it into two. One class, she noted, gets federal benefits, the other does not. Just as the federal government cannot take the word "person" and say it means only Caucasians or only women, said Bonauto, it should not be able to take the word "marriage" and say it means only heterosexual couples. Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex couples, and noted that a House Judiciary Committee report "explicitly stated the purpose of DOMA was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."
Keen notes that the plaintiffs in both cases asked the judge to apply a strict scrutiny standard, which "requires the government to come up with a fairly significant reason for treating gay couples differently under the law." Judge Tauro found that Section 3 of DOMA fails even a "rational basis" standard, which is easier for the government to satisfy.
If today's rulings are upheld by the First Circuit U.S. Appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, hundreds of Iowa couples married since April 2009 may be able to receive federal benefits.
FOURTH UPDATE: Adam Bink discusses the debate in LGBT circles on whether it would be better or worse for the U.S. Department of Justice to appeal this ruling.
Republican gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad announced last week that he would send his running mate, State Senator Kim Reynolds, to campaign in the 25 counties where Bob Vander Plaats received more votes than Branstad in last month's primary. (You can download the official canvass by county here.) Branstad told reporters, "My plan is to send Kim Reynolds to every area where Bob Vander Plaats was strong so they get to see her and know her because I think to know her is to love her."
Over the holiday weekend, Reynolds walked some of the state's largest parades with Branstad in Urbandale and West Des Moines, but she also covered parades in Dallas County, where Vander Plaats almost matched Branstad's vote, and in Humboldt and Jasper counties, where Vander Plaats racked up sizable margins on June 8.
Reynolds has made a point to meet with Vander Plaats supporters when visiting counties Branstad carried, such as Henry and Union. Reynolds' political experience relates mostly to fiscal matters, and economic and budget issues are at the forefront in her stump speech, but she makes sure her activist audiences know that she's "pro-life" and for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Yesterday Reynolds spoke to Republicans in Carroll, the only county carried by State Representative Rod Roberts in the GOP gubernatorial primary. After the event she told journalist Douglas Burns that she believes abortion is "equivalent to murder." She then dodged several follow-up questions regarding what she views as an appropriate penalty for women who have abortions or doctors who perform them.
Interestingly, Reynolds told Burns that while she believes marriage should be for one man and one woman, she's not necessarily against sother forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples:
"We could take a look at civil unions," Reynolds said. "There are other options maybe that I would be in favor of looking at."
She added, "They can do civil unions. I think they can get to some of the same place that they want to look at."
I suspect that position is not popular with the social conservatives Reynolds is courting. A University of Iowa Hawkeye poll taken in the spring of 2009 found that about 37 percent of respondents statewide opposed any legal recognition for same-sex couples. Presumably that group includes the Republicans most energized against gay marriage.
Reynolds' position might resonate with many moderates, because the same Hawkeye poll from 2009 indicated that about 28 percent of Iowans oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. (About 26 percent of respondents in that poll expressed support for same-sex marriage rights.) That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Branstad campaign walk back her comments on civil unions if they are widely reported. A few months ago, Branstad suggested that he was open to legal protections for gay couples as well as gay adoption. His campaign spokesman quickly backpedaled.
Share any thoughts about the governor's race in this thread.
UPDATE: That didn't take long. Conservative blogger Shane Vander Hart posted the Branstad campaign's reaction to Reynolds' comments on civil unions:
Sen. Reynolds' position on civil unions mirrors that of Gov. Branstad's. They do not favor state-sanctioned civil unions, but would not have the government step in to prevent private companies and entities from extending same-sex benefits if they so choose.
Vander Hart comments,
(Scratching my head)
That's not what she said. If she doesn't favor state-sanctioned civil unions why would she say she is open to them? There's a disconnect there.
While on one hand I'm glad she believes that Iowans deserve to vote on the definition of marriage, when she said "the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman from a religious aspect" she failed to acknowledge that the definition of marriage has civil and not just religious implications.
She pretty much articulated what Governor Chet Culver believes in the matter, or at least says he believes regarding the definition of marriage.
The clarification offered by the Branstad campaign does little to clean up the situation. The question that Reynolds was asked had nothing to do with private companies that provide benefits to same sex couples. The question that she was asked was about the impact that gay marriages have had on Iowa, and her position on the matter. She is the one who brought up the term "civil unions."
When TheIowaRepublican.com reminded the Branstad campaign about Reynolds' exact statement, a spokesman responded by saying, "Kim used the reporter's phrase to describe what she was referring to, which is the ability of private entities to offer partnership benefits. She does not support state-sanctioned civil unions."
Reynolds' answer and the Branstad campaign's attempt to clarify the matter raise a number of questions about their understanding of the marriage issue in Iowa and the campaign's ability to properly prepare Reynolds for the number of questions that she will face while on the campaign trail.
This is the second time since the June 8th primary that the Branstad campaign has stubbed its toe on social issues. The first came when Planned Parenthood endorsed Governor Culver and the Branstad campaign failed to offer any comment to KCCI, central Iowa's highest rated TV news station.
This week Forbes released its 2010 list of "America's Best Places to Raise a Family," and the Des Moines/West Des Moines metro area ranked number one. Methodology:
To find the cities where families fare best, we ranked America's 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in seven categories. Using numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sperling's Best Places and Moody's Economy.com, we looked at the cost of living, prevalence of home ownership, median household income, housing costs, commute time, crime and the percentage of young adults that graduate high school.
The Des Moines metro topped the list because, "Its young population is more likely to graduate high school than in other cities, and life for most families is safe and affordable. Short average commute times save working parents precious minutes to spend with their families."
Click here to view the rest of the Forbes report. I was surprised to see that six mid-sized cities on the east coast made the top 10 list.
Speaking of surprises, you may enjoy this One Iowa story about two men who decided to get married in Pella, where they live. Even in that famously conservative small town, they have found growing acceptance of their relationship and marriage.
This is an open thread. What's on your mind this weekend?
The result was overshadowed by other competitive races, but Democratic voters in Iowa House district 66 produced a big victory for marriage equality yesterday. Elder Clair Rudison, a socially conservative pastor, challenged two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad. Rudison sent out at least five direct-mail pieces attacking Ako's record, two of which mentioned gay marriage (I posted those here).
Most Iowa politics-watchers were confident Ako would win this primary, but in a low-turnout environment anything can happen, so I was relieved to see Ako won 75 percent of the vote yesterday. The result is important because the only Iowa House Democrat who has consistently worked with Republicans to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote is retiring this year. If Rudison had won the primary, Republicans would be able to continue to claim bipartisan support for their battle against equality and reproductive rights.
One Iowa released a statment on the House district 66 results. Excerpt:
Voters rejected the negative and divisive tactics he and the Iowa Family Policy Center used to try to smear his opponent. "We congratulate Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad on his decisive victory and welcome his continued leadership at the statehouse," said Jenison.
Chuck Hurley and his followers at the Iowa Family Policy Center recruited Clair Rudison to run against long-time community activist and current state representative Ako Abdul-Samad in the Democratic primary simply because Abdul-Samad supports marriage equality for all Iowans.
"For more than a year, the Iowa Family Policy Center said repeatedly that the legislative elections in 2010 will be about one thing: gay marriage," said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. "Tonight's results prove them wrong. Iowans are not interested in writing discrimination into our constitution. They are concerned with creating jobs, improving our schools, and moving our state forward."
The recent Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV should be a warning to Republicans who think bashing gay marriage will be their winning ticket in November. About 53 percent of respondents said they favored marriage rights for same-sex couples, while only 41 percent opposed them. KCCI's managing editor for internet broadcasting provided the cross-tabs for that part of the poll. They indicate that support for equality is stronger among women (57-36) than among men (49-46). The KCCI poll showed independents supporting same-sex marriage rights by 58-31, closer to the Democratic numbers of 81-17 than to the Republican respondents, who oppose marriage equality by 83-14.
A critical Democratic primary contest is taking place in House district 66, where Clair Rudison is challenging two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad. I discussed this race here. A Bleeding Heartland reader who lives in the district sent me images of direct-mail pieces Rudison's campaign has sent out during the last week or so. I've posted the images after the jump. One says marriage is a "building block of our community," noting that Clair Rudison wants to "let the people vote" while Ako Abdul-Samad "has consistently voted against allowing the Iowa House to bring this matter to the people." Another points out that Ako voted for increasing vehicle registration fees. A third says Ako voted for creating the Iowa Film Office and therefore "opened the door for your tax money to be stolen by Hollywood producers." The fourth piece draws a contrast between Ako and Rudison on all of the above issues (Iowa Film Office, vehicle fee increases, and allowing Iowans to vote on marriage).
Rudison implies that "a majority of Iowans" oppose Ako's stance on marriage equality, but the latest KCCI poll suggests a majority favor same-sex marriage rights. House district 66 contains some of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods in Des Moines (Drake area, Sherman Hill, "East Village"), so it's far-fetched to portray Ako as out of step with his constituents.
Rudison unfairly alleges on one mailer, "Instead of tax dollars being spent to fight crime, improve education or increase access to health care, Ako gave our money to Hollywood." During Ako's two terms in the Iowa House, Democrats have allocated lots of money to fighting crime, improving education and expanding access to health care, especially for children. I'm no fan of the film tax credit, but the money we wasted on that program didn't stop Democrats from expanding children's health care and voluntary preschool for four- and five-year-olds. I was amused to read that Rudison claims to have "opposed creation of the Film Office." Is there a public record of that? Only one member of the Iowa House and two members of the Iowa Senate voted against creating the film tax credit. Rudison was a pastor in Fort Dodge at the time.
In an overview of this race at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock noted that Rudison "has focused his campaign on issues like education and the state budget, pointing to the Forrest Avenue Library's decision to close on Fridays and Saturdays due to budget cuts [...]." Although Rudison hasn't said much about gay marriage, the Iowa Family PAC (which is connected to the Iowa Family Policy Center) is supporting his campaign. Activists on the religious right have reason to support Rudison because no Republican has a prayer of winning House district 66. In addition, the only House Democrat who has consistently voted with Republicans on marriage issues (Dolores Mertz) is retiring. House Republicans would love to have Rudison join the Democratic caucus so they can continue to claim bipartisan support for their efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote.
Ed Fallon represented House district 66 for 14 years and knows the area well. I share his assessment that Ako "should win this [primary] easily, but he's not taking anything for granted, which is smart." Ako has strong roots in the community, and he won a seat on the Des Moines School Board before running for the state legislature. He's been making lots of voter contacts and has the endorsement of AFSCME. One Iowa's political action committee, the Fairness Fund, has an organizer working in the district too. However, Rudison has been campaigning actively, and I don't doubt there are many voters upset about budget cuts affecting their families, schools and local library. If you or any of your Democratic friends live in this district, please do what you can to get out the vote for Ako on Tuesday.
About 57 percent of likely Iowa Republican primary voters support Terry Branstad, according to a new poll by Selzer and Co. for The Des Moines Register. Just 29 percent plan to vote for Bob Vander Plaats, and 8 percent plan to vote for Rod Roberts. The Des Moines Register poll surveyed 1,793 Iowans at least 18 years old, and the sub-sample of Republican primary voters included 501 people. (That included independents who said they planned to vote in the GOP primary; Iowa allows people to change their party registration on primary election day.) The poll was in the field from June 1 through June 3, and results for the likely Republican voters have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
This primary might have played out differently had Vander Plaats had more resources to make his case. About 34 percent of likely Republican primary voters weren't sure whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Vander Plaats, and 60 percent said the same about Roberts. Branstad not only is much better known, he also scored highest on attributes like "best ideas for bringing new jobs to Iowa" and "best able to curb government spending" (which is laughable when you consider Branstad's record on fiscal issues).
I will never understand why the Club for Growth and other national right-wing organizations decided not to get involved in the Iowa governor's race. Given the way the national conservative movement pushed Marco Rubio against Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you'd think they would have some issues with Branstad (who received a "D" grade from the Cato Institute when he was governor).
Selzer's poll for the Des Moines Register also asked likely Republican primary voters several questions about gay marriage. While 77 percent of them agreed that "Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage," I was surprised to see that 20 percent of likely Republican voters disagreed with that statement.
Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that "Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage." An amazing (to me) 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, "Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal," 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed.
Share any thoughts about the Des Moines Register's poll in this thread.
Research 2000's latest Iowa poll for KCCI-TV contains good news for supporters of marriage equality. The survey asked, "Now that more than a year has gone by since the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, do you favor or oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples?" 53 percent respondents said they favor those rights, 41 percent opposed them and 6 percent were unsure.
I haven't seen the full poll results, showing support for same-sex marriage rights among men, women, Democrats, Republicans and independents. I will update this post with a link to the cross-tabs when I find them. Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center told KCCI he didn't think the poll was representative of Iowans' views, but several other statewide polls have shown that the majority of Iowans are not eager to overturn marriage equality. As time passes, public acceptance should increase if the experience of Vermont and Massachusetts are guides.
The KCCI poll also found that 62 percent of respondents support legalizing medical marijuana in Iowa, 33 percent oppose doing so and 5 percent are unsure.
Getting back to the same-sex marriage issue, I give huge credit to the Libertarian candidate for Iowa governor, Eric Cooper. On Thursday he made the case for tolerance while speaking to the Ames Conservative Breakfast Club.
Here's my rough transcript of the first part of this clip:
You know who the Pilgrims were? The Pilgrims were a group of people in England, and everybody in England hated their guts. And you know what they did? They came to America to live here. And the reason--they came here because we were the land of the free. We started the land of the free. That is, even if everyone in surrounding society hates your guts, in America as long as you're not hurting other people and their property, you can live the way that you want, as long as you're being peaceful.
To me, that's the most American story there is. If you're a peaceful person who's not hurting other people, you get to live your life according to your cultural traditions. OK, well, guess what? There are some homosexuals in America today, and to me, they're the Pilgrims, ok? Surrounding society doesn't like 'em very much, but you know what? What America is, is you get to live the way that you want to live. And if their cultural tradition is that they can get married, I think that's America, to allow them to follow that cultural tradition. No, I don't think that's [unintelligible] surrounding society as a whole, and I think if we're gonna restrict that, we're not America anymore, we're England, ok? And we're better than England, we're America.
Now people say, "Well shouldn't we be allowed to vote on marriage and what marriage means in the state of Iowa?" Well, yeah, legally, there are mechanisms by which a sufficiently large supermajority can persecute any minority they want. Yes, legally, we could all vote to persecute the Pilgrims if we wanted to and yeah, legally, we could all vote to say, you know, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry if we want to. But that's not America anymore, ok?
You'd expect a Libertarian addressing a Republican group to focus on likely areas of agreement: reducing taxes and the size of government. Instead of just preaching to the choir, Cooper challenged his audience to think about a charged issue differently. He had to know that most people at that breakfast club oppose what the Iowa Supreme Court did.
Post any thoughts on same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread. The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa's leading gay wedding planner may star in a television "docu-reality series" about his work. Beau Fodor created Gay Weddings With Panache soon after the Varnum v Brien decision was announced last year.
UPDATE: On Sunday the Des Moines Register published results from a Selzer and Co. Iowa poll of 501 likely Iowa Republican primary voters, which was in the field from June 1 through June 3. The survey included several questions about gay marriage. About 77 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that "Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage," but 20 percent disagreed with that statement. Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that "Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage." About 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, "Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal," 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed. I find those numbers encouraging.
Vice President Joe Biden headlines Governor Chet Culver's re-election rally today in Cedar Rapids. If you are watching in person or online, please share your impressions in this thread. I will update the post later with more coverage of the event. Adam Sullivan is live-tweeting for Iowa Independent.
Yesterday the governor kicked off his campaign at Hoover High School in Des Moines, followed by stops in Ames, Marshalltown and Waterloo. Kathie Obradovich felt Culver's speech "salvaged" the otherwise low-energy event in Des Moines. After the jump I've posted excerpts from Culver's remarks, which his campaign released. He frames the race as a choice of going backwards "to policies that created this recession" or forward to continue the investments his administration has begun. Culver outlined some goals for the next five years, such as completing rebuilding efforts from the 2008 floods, "making quality pre-school available to every Iowa child whose parents want to take advantage of it," pursuing stem cell research in Iowa, and "increasing the percentage of our energy production coming from alternative sources from 20% to at least 30%." Culver chided Republicans who "just say no," think corporate tax cuts are the answer for every problem and "continue to preach the failed doctrine of trickle down economics."
Any comments about the governor's race are welcome in this thread. Speaking of Republicans who want to take us backwards, Terry Branstad's campaign started running a new ad today, which portrays the former governor as "the change we need now." I'll have more to say about Branstad's campaign message in a different post, but for now I wonder whether he will get away with repeating his lie about Iowa running a "billion-dollar deficit."
UPDATE: Um, what the heck? Someone get the governor a driver who won't try to chase another driver down for a stupid reason.
John Deeth liveblogged the Biden event here. Kathie Obradovich tweeted here. Key points of Biden's message: he's known Chet Culver since he was seven years old and knows he has "the gumption to handle the job at this time." Also, with Culver in charge "Iowa is better off than almost every other state in the nation ... Iowa is still moving forward." Biden praised Culver for being ahead of the curve in establishing the Power Fund in 2007:
"Government is not the answer but it can prime the pump and encourage the private sector."
"45 out of [50] governors, Democrat and Republican, are sitting on their hands. Because of Chet's leadership Iowa is better prepared." [...]
"What are Republicans FOR? Not a joke. Tell me one affirmative thing the Republican Party is for."
Based on advice from the Iowa Attorney General's Office, the IDPH contends that the non-birthing spouse must complete the adoption process in order to be listed as the second parent on a child's birth certificate, even if the child was born after the parents were legally married. I'm a big fan of Attorney General Tom Miller, but his office blew it on this one.
Iowa Republican State Senator Merlin Bartz is raising the bar for pettiness among self-styled defenders of "traditional marriage."
His latest target: a new rule proposed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, which would broaden the definition of "immediate family" for those using state-run campsites to include guardians and domestic partners.
Everyone who moderates a debate this year could learn from the journalists who guided the May 1 Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates' debate: Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Paul Yeager of Iowa Public Television, and Jeneane Beck of Iowa Public Radio. Too many journalists ask long-winded questions that are easy to evade, or ask about hot topics of no lasting importance, or ask about policies outside the scope of the office the candidates are seeking.
In contrast, almost every question the panelists asked during Saturday's debate was direct and addressed an issue the next governor of Iowa will face. Here are a few examples:
"Can you name one service government provides today that it should stop providing in the interest of saving the budget?"
"If elected, will you continue to support the Iowa Values Fund, the business grant and loan program created during the Vilsack administration, and also the renewable energy grant program established by Governor Culver known as the Iowa Power Fund?"
"Is there a role that government should play in limiting premium increases by Iowa insurance companies?"
"Do you believe that obesity is a problem that should be addressed through government action such as limiting unhealthy ingredients in food?"
Mind you, asking a direct, unambiguous question doesn't guarantee that you'll get a straight answer from a politician. Look what happened when Dorman asked the Republicans, "Can you identify one tangible way Iowa has been harmed during a full year of legal same-sex marriage?"
One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. From April 27, 2009 through the end of last year, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved. Despite a petition drive led by some Iowa Republicans and the Iowa Family Policy Center, not a single county recorder denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Although all three Republican candidates for governor say they want to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, marriage equality is probably here to stay. Conservative groups are not urging voters to pass a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which would be the quickest path to amend the Iowa constitution. Bob Vander Plaats probably won't win the Republican nomination for governor, much less the November election, and even if he did, his plan to halt gay marriage by executive order is a non-starter.
That leaves the self-styled defenders of traditional marriage one path: approving an amendment restricting marriage rights in two separately elected Iowa legislatures, then convincing a majority of Iowans to vote for that amendment (in November 2014 at the earliest).
Republicans have an outside shot at winning a majority in the Iowa House in 2010, but they have virtually no chance of taking back the Iowa Senate this year. Democrats currently hold a 32-18 majority in the upper chamber. A net gain of four or five seats is the best-case scenario for the GOP, and I consider a net gain of two or three seats much more likely. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal in a position to block all efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a floor vote during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.
Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts claims he could force Democrats to allow a marriage vote. His plan is to veto all legislation, including the state budget, until the Iowa House and Senate have voted on a marriage amendment. I doubt a Republican could win that game of chicken even if Governor Chet Culver is defeated this November. Polling indicates that most Iowans are not eager to ban gay marriage and think the state legislature has more important things to do. Anyway, the most likely Republican nominee, Terry Branstad, has an incoherent position on gay marriage and probably would make only a token effort to get a constitutional amendment passed.
Share any thoughts about same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread.
Speaking of civil rights, some reports indicate that the House of Representatives will vote this year to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has ended far too many military careers. Click here to read a moving open letter to President Obama from an Air Force major who was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.
"We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they are accountable to the people of Iowa," said Roberts, who has made restoring the role of the people in state government a centerpiece of his campaign. "The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the legislature and of the people of Iowa."
Roberts said that if the federal government passes a nationalized health care plan that conflicts with the Roberts Amendment, as governor he will file a lawsuit in federal court against President Obama to have the plan struck down as a violation of Iowans' Tenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government (such as the regulation of health insurance) are reserved for the states.
Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad also supported the idea of using the courts to nullify the will of Congress: "Given the massive scope and effect of this [health insurance reform] bill, it is likely that various provisions will be challenged in the courts. Those challenges are both timely and appropriate."
Any constitutional lawyer can tell you that the U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Law professor Mark Hall explains in detail here why constitutional arguments against an individual mandate to purchase health insurance are wrong. As for the broader 10th amendment claim that the constitution doesn't empower the federal government to regulate health insurance, Hall notes, "Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution's 'Commerce Clause' to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy."
While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of "commerce" as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)
The U.S. Supreme Court could overrule the will of Congress on health insurance reform only by reversing several decades of precedent about the definition of commerce. That's textbook "judicial activism," but it's ok with some Iowa Republicans if it achieves the political end they are seeking.
By the way, Vander Plaats claims that as governor, he could issue an executive order halting same-sex marriages in Iowa. I wonder if he also thinks President Barack Obama could issue an executive order overturning a possible Supreme Court ruling against health insurance reform.
What's more, the penalties for not buying insurance are tax penalties, and if anything, Congress has even wider scope in the tax area than in the commerce area. The Supreme Court has frequently ruled that Congress can pass tax laws that essentially force people to do things that Congress doesn't have the direct power to require.
[...]here's the thing: if the Supreme Court decided to overturn decades of precedent and strike down the mandate even though Kevin Drum says they shouldn't (hard to imagine, I know), the insurance industry will go ballistic. If they're required to cover all comers, even those with expensive pre-existing conditions, then they have to have a mandate in order to get all the healthy people into the insurance pool too. So they would argue very persuasively that unless Congress figures out a fix, they'll drive private insurers out of business in short order. And that, in turn, will almost certainly be enough incentive for both Democrats and Republicans to find a way to enforce a mandate by other means. If necessary, there are ways to rewrite the rules so that people aren't literally required to get insurance, but are incentivized so strongly that nearly everyone will do it. As an example, Congress might pass a law making state Medicaid funding dependent on states passing laws requiring residents to buy insurance. Dependent funding is something Congress does routinely, and states don't have any constitutional issues when it comes to requiring residents to buy insurance. They all do it with auto insurance and Massachusetts does it with health insurance.
Like Drum, I view these proposed legal challenges as Republican posturing rather than a serious threat to nullify the law Obama signed this morning.
Jefferson County supervisor Stephen Burgmeier filed yesterday to be the Republican candidate in Iowa House district 90, setting up a rematch with Democrat Curt Hanson. The district covers all of Van Buren County, most of Jefferson County (including Fairfield) and a small portion of Wapello County (map here).
Notably, Hanson built up a strong advantage in early voting and beat Burgmeier in Jefferson County by about 600 votes. In addition, two social conservatives ran as third-party candidates, and the 282 combined votes they received was greater than Hanson's 127-vote margin over Burgmeier. The spoiler candidates were unhappy that Burgmeier didn't talk much about abortion and gay marriage during the campaign.
House district 90 is likely to be one of the most competitive races in the state. If you living within striking distance of the area, please consider volunteering for Hanson's campaign this summer and fall. That said, I like Hanson's chances of holding the seat this November. Burgmeier couldn't win a low-turnout special election during a severe recession when the GOP base was all fired up about the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on marriage. Despite having been elected three times as a supervisor, Burgmeier lost his own county by a sizable margin.
This week Hanson, a retired driving instructor, co-chaired a conference committee to resolve differences between the Iowa House and Senate bills to restrict texting while driving.
"The Iowa Legislature outlawed smoking [in some public places] in an effort to improve health and reduce the medical costs that are often passed on to the state," Hurley said. "The secondhand impacts of certain homosexual acts are arguably more destructive, and potentially more costly to society than smoking." [...]
"Iowa lawmakers need to pay attention to hard facts and not be persuaded by emotion laden half-truths," he said. "Because of their unwillingness to correct the error of last April's Iowa Supreme Court opinion, the Iowa Legislature is responsible for sanctioning activities that will lead to dramatically higher rates of HIV and syphilis in Iowa."
AIDS is a serious health threat in the U.S., but not on the same scale as smoking. AIDS has caused fewer than 20,000 deaths nationwide per year in the past decade. The total number of AIDS deaths in this country since the epidemic began is estimated at just under 600,000. I was unable to find statistics showing how many Iowans have died of AIDS, but according to this report for the Iowa Department of Public Health, 114 Iowans were diagnosed with HIV in 2005, and 79 Iowans were diagnosed with AIDS the same year. The numbers may have increased somewhat since then, but AIDS is nowhere near as "destructive" and "costly" to Iowans as smoking. Iowa's syphilis rate is far below the national average, and none of the states with the highest syphilis rates permit same-sex marriages. If Iowa legislators want to influence the syphilis rate, they should focus on providing adequate funding levels for STD testing and ensuring that young people have access to medically accurate sex education.
Hurley's argument is not only fact-free, but also illogical on several levels. He seems to think that allowing same-gender couples to get married is going to encourage many more Iowans to experiment with gay sex. Do you know anyone who decided to become gay because they knew they'd be able to get married? Has homosexual activity diminished in New York and New Jersey since those states' legislatures declined to legalize same-sex marriage? Did California's Proposition 8 reduce the number of gays and lesbians having sex there?
If Hurley is worried about promiscuity and sexually-transmitted diseases, he should be happy to see gay couples settle down and get married.
Contrary to the strange fantasies of the Iowa Family Policy Center crowd, the Iowa Supreme Court didn't make the sky fall last April. Fortunately, most Iowans understand that our state legislators have more important things to do than overturn same-sex marriage rights. They also sense that giving legal recognition to the relationships of committed same-sex couples does no harm to other people. More than 90 percent of respondents in a statewide poll conducted last September said gay marriage had caused "no real change" in their lives.
Congratulations to the same-sex couples who received marriage licenses in Washington, DC today, the first day same-sex marriage became legal in the capital. The city council had approved same-sex marriage rights last fall, but "because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review period that expired Tuesday." The weddings will begin on March 9 because of a mandatory waiting period.
One person who wasn't celebrating today was Representative Steve King. He complained yesterday that Republican leaders in Congress didn't push "hard enough" to overturn the D.C. city council's decision on marriage equality.
Republican lawmakers, led by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), have introduced a resolution in Congress to overturn the city council's ruling, which Congress can do because Washington is a federal district, and not a state.
King took Democrats to task, also, for not allowing a vote on that measure.
"There's a certain level of understanding that this pro-same sex marriage agenda is a Pelosi agenda; it's a leftist, liberal agenda," King said. "There are a lot of items we need to be fighting, and this is a big one."
Look on the bright side, congressman. Maybe Iowa will become less of a gay marriage "Mecca" now that same-sex couples can get married in DC (as well as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire).
Seriously, I find it encouraging that Democratic leaders in Congress didn't feel political pressure to overturn DC's decision on marriage equality. This issue is losing its potency for the Republicans, and their House and Senate leaders seem to recognize that, even if Steve King doesn't.
Although King has little sympathy for gays and lesbians who want the same civil marriage rights he enjoys, he did find in in his heart last week to stand up for Washington lobbyists:
[Y]es lobbyists do a very effective and useful job on this Hill. [...] Somebody needs to stand up for the lobby, it is a matter of providing a lot of valuable information.
UPDATE: I know it doesn't pay to go looking for logic in comments by Steve King, but even by his standards, this is bizarre. King argues that since House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is gay, and Frank doesn't want the federal government interfering in a consensual relationship between two adults, then Frank should oppose prevailing wage requirements for federal contractors. King's idea is that contractors and their employees are "consenting adults" who should be able to agree on a wage of their choice. (By that reasoning, King would want to do away with the minimum wage and other labor laws.)
QUESTION: As you may know, same-sex marriages have been legal in Iowa for over a year. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment which would over turn current law allowing same sex marriages in Iowa?
YES NO NOT SURE
ALL 39% 42% 19%
MEN 43% 40% 17%
WOMEN 35% 44% 21%
QUESTION: Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriages, do you favor or oppose allowing same-sex couples the same benefits allowed to heterosexual couples, known as civil unions?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
ALL 51% 40% 9%
MEN 47% 44% 9%
WOMEN 55% 36% 9%
Less than a year after the Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v Brien ruling, a slight plurality of Iowans would not support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Among independents, a plurality oppose a constitutional amendment and a strong majority would support equal rights for same-sex couples in the form of civil unions. Even among Republican respondents, just two-thirds supported banning gay marriage.
Last week Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate defeated Republican efforts to force a floor vote on a marriage amendment. Although GOP candidates and interest groups will push their "let us vote" campaign this fall, I am less and less worried about the marriage issue hurting Democrats in the 2010 statehouse elections. Economic issues will be far more important to voters.
The Iowa Legislature has been moving at an unusually fast pace during the shortened 2010 session. It's time to catch up on what's happened at the statehouse over the past three weeks. From here on out I will try to post a legislative roundup at the end of every week.
February 12 was the first "funnel" deadline. In order to have a chance of moving forward in 2010, all legislation except for tax and appropriations bills must have cleared at least one Iowa House or Senate committee by the end of last Friday.
After the jump I've included links on lots of bills that have passed or are still under consideration, as well as bills I took an interest in that failed to clear the funnel. I have grouped bills by subject area. This post is not an exhaustive list; way too many bills are under consideration for me to discuss them all. I recommend this funnel day roundup by Rod Boshart for the Mason City Globe-Gazette.
Note: the Iowa legislature's second funnel deadline is coming up on March 5. To remain alive after that point, all bills except tax and appropriations bills must have been approved by either the full House or Senate and by a committee in the opposite chamber. Many bills that cleared the first funnel week will die in the second.
![[Bleeding Heartland Logo]](http://www.bleedingheartland.com/upload/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
