Advocacy groups representing local government bodies are concerned that the Iowa Supreme Court’s new decision on open meetings will make it difficult for elected officials to obtain information from staff and conduct business. On Friday, a divided court ruled that Warren County supervisors were not in compliance with Iowa law when they used a staffer as a go-between while working out a county downsizing plan behind closed doors. Writing for the majority of four, Justice David Wiggins argued that allowing such a scheme “would result in absurd consequences undermining the clear purpose of the open meetings law.” He further explained that “open meetings requirements apply to all in-person gatherings at which there is deliberation upon any matter within the scope of the policy-making duties of a governmental body by a majority of its members, including in-person gatherings attended by members of a governmental body through agents or proxies.”

Three justices dissented, seeing it as a job for state lawmakers “to redefine the requirements of the open meetings law” and warning that the court’s new standard “will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned public officials” who rely on information from staff when considering policy options.

The full text of the majority decision and dissents in Hutchison v Shull can be found here. Bleeding Heartland posted background on the case and highlights from the opinions here.

Justice Thomas Waterman’s dissent lamented the absence of “friend of the court” briefs from the Iowa State Association of Counties, the Iowa League of Cities, and the Iowa Association of School Boards. I asked representatives of each organization to explain how their training for elected officials addresses Warren County-like methods to avoid discussing public policy in open meetings. I also sought comment on the Hutchison v Shull majority ruling and on the concerns Waterman raised.

You didn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work this one out, but Bruce Rastetter helpfully confirmed today that he will support State Senator Rick Bertrand’s GOP primary challenge to Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district.

Assuming Rastetter puts his money where his mouth is–and years of disclosed and undisclosed political contributions suggest that he will–he may become a major donor to Nick Ryan’s effort to take out seven-term incumbent King.

Early in last year’s legislative session, state lawmakers voted to raise Iowa’s gasoline tax for the first time in more than two decades. Unlike many controversial policy questions, this issue did not split the public or elected officials along party lines. The Des Moines Register’s February 2015 statewide poll showed Iowans generally and subgroups of Democrats, Republicans, and independents were all divided on whether to raise the tax by 10 cents a gallon to pay for road and bridge repairs. In the Iowa House and Senate, lawmakers from both parties voted for and against the tax increase. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal had reportedly refused to bring the bill to the floor without a guarantee that at least half of the 24 GOP senators would vote for it.

The immediate backlash against the gas tax hike came mostly from Republican circles. Former Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker and former state party co-chair David Fischer were among the vocal critics. Conservative WHO Radio host Simon Conway urged Republicans to “send a message” by changing their party registration.

Governor Terry Branstad signed the gas tax hike into law within 24 hours of its passage. The following day, conservative activist Eric Durbin announced on Conway’s show that he would challenge nine-term incumbent State Representative Clel Baudler in the 2016 GOP primary to represent Iowa House district 20.

Yet a year later, there is little sign of political fallout for the 28 state senators and 53 state representatives who voted to make Iowans pay a little more at the pump.

UPDATE: I got this call myself on March 22 and recorded the questions, so was able to fill in gaps below.

A poll is in the field testing negative messages about two of the three Democratic candidates running in Iowa’s third Congressional district. I haven’t received the call, but I discussed it with two respondents, one of whom shared notes on the poll with me. I encourage all activists to take notes on political surveys, whether they are legitimate message-testing polls, like this one, or push-polls. Campaigns use message-testing to collect and analyze data about candidates’ strengths and weaknesses and which talking points resonate with voters. In contrast, as Kathy Frankovic explained here a push-poll is “political telemarketing masquerading as a poll,” designed solely to disseminate negative information.

Three Democrats are seeking the nomination in IA-03: Desmund Adams, Jim Mowrer, and Mike Sherzan. The respondents who told me about this poll heard negative messages about Mowrer and Sherzan only. Both had said on the first ballot test that they were supporting Mowrer. If any Bleeding Heartland readers receive the same call, please say you plan to vote for Adams and then let me know whether the caller presents a list of unflattering statements about him. (UPDATE: Another respondent reports that he indicated strong support for Adams but was not given negative information about him.)

It’s possible that whoever paid for this call–my hunch is Sherzan’s campaign–is more concerned about Mowrer than Adams, because Mowrer has a lot of support from Democratic insiders and more funds to raise his name recognition across the district before June 7.

State legislative incumbents typically are unchallenged for their party’s nomination, but every election cycle, some hopefuls take on sitting members of the Iowa House or Senate in a primary election. This year, nine Iowa House members (four Democrats, five Republicans) will face competitive primaries. Sometimes these long-shot candidates just want to serve in the legislature, like State Representative Kevin Koester’s GOP opponent in House district 38. Brett Nelson has run for the Iowa House more than half a dozen times.

Other primary challengers are motivated by ideology, like the Liberty-oriented former Congressional candidate Bryan Jack Holder. Wearing an 18th-century style tri-corner hat, he filed this year against State Representative Greg Forristall in House district 22.

Some challengers have a specific bone to pick with the incumbent. Conservative Dave Hartsuch ousted State Senator Maggie Tinsman, one of the last pro-choice Republicans to serve in the Iowa legislature, in a 2006 GOP primary. Hartsuch proved too extreme for his district and fell to Roby Smith in a primary four years later.

Occasionally, an incumbent who appears destined to fight for his party’s nomination ends up in an uncontested primary. In what I deemed a St. Patrick’s Day miracle two years ago, State Representative Josh Byrnes drew no GOP challenger despite having publicly supported marriage equality, Medicaid expansion, and a gasoline tax increase.

This year’s escape artist serves in the Iowa Senate, where no incumbents have any competition on the primary ballot. How he managed to avoid a battle with the far right is completely beyond me.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The filing period for Democratic and Republican candidates for Iowa offices ended on Friday, March 18. The last-minute retirements by three Iowa House incumbents grabbed my immediate attention, but I have many other posts in progress related to statehouse and Congressional races. Meanwhile, John Deeth already finished his overview of all 125 state legislative contests, and Pat Rynard highlighted ten districts where Iowa Democrats need to field candidates, in case Donald Trump at the top of the GOP ticket produces a “massive wave that sweeps Republicans out of office at all levels.”

I couldn’t agree more. Remember, the 2010 landslide allowed Republicans to pick up three Iowa House seats where the party hadn’t even fielded challengers in 2008. They also defeated Democratic State Representative John Beard, who was unopposed at this point in the 2010 campaign, by nominating a GOP candidate in his House district at a special convention in June. The six Republicans who picked up Democratic-held Iowa Senate seats in 2010 included Mark Chelgren. No one took “Chickenman” seriously until he beat a Democratic incumbent by ten votes in an Ottumwa-based district neither party believed to be in play.

Almost anything can happen in a wave election, so finding Democratic candidates for the more promising uncontested Iowa House and Senate seats is imperative. Trump could “cause a massive electoral wipe-out,” but you can’t beat something with nothing.

First-term Representative David Young has never been a favorite among Iowa conservatives, but he escaped a strong challenge from the right in his first re-election campaign.

State Representative David Dawson announced today that he will not seek a third term in Iowa House district 14. I enclose below a news release he posted on Facebook at approximately 6:00 pm on March 18. Although I am on the press distribution list for the Iowa House Democrats, at this writing I have not received the statement by e-mail. Earlier today, Timothy Kacena filed for the Democratic nomination in the district, which covers the west side of Sioux City in Woodbury County (scroll down to view a map). I have not received a press release announcing Kacena’s candidacy, though it is not unusual for several days to pass between a campaign launch and the House Democrats e-mailing a statement about the race.

I have not found a campaign website or Facebook page for Kacena. He appears to have retired from Sioux City Fire Rescue. When I reached him by phone this evening, Kacena declined to comment on whether he is personally acquainted with Dawson or when he was recruited to run for House district 14. Most Iowa politics watchers had no idea until today that Dawson was not planning to seek re-election. No one who didn’t have advance notice could have collected 50 signatures and driven from Sioux City to Des Moines in time to file for the primary ballot by the close of business. Kacena will face Robert Henderson, who filed today for the GOP nomination in the district.

I am seeking comment from Dawson on why he didn’t announce his retirement earlier, whether he is acquainted with Kacena, whether he recruited him for this seat, and if so, when they first talked about the race. If I hear back, I will update this post. The photo accompanying today’s Facebook post shows Dawson with three young children. Spending several months a year in Des Moines is demanding work, taking a lot of time away from lawmakers’ families. Opting out is an understandable decision, and for all I know it may have been a last-minute call for Dawson. While I don’t begrudge anyone that choice, I wish state legislators would let it be known that they are wavering on a re-election bid, so others have a chance to consider running for public office in an open seat.

House district 14 leans Democratic, with 5,938 active registered Democrats, 4,102 Republicans, and 4,710 no-party voters, according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. President Barack Obama received 59.33 percent of the vote here in 2012, and Bruce Braley ran only 1 percent behind Joni Ernst among the district’s voters, far better than his statewide showing in the 2014 U.S. Senate race.

Dawson is the third Iowa House Democrat in as many days to announce a surprise retirement. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, State Representative Nancy Dunkel revealed her plans on Wednesday, the same day Tom Stecher declared his candidacy in House district 57. State Representative Deborah Berry disclosed Thursday that she will not seek another term in House district 62. Ras Smith filed to run in that heavily Democratic seat the same day. At this writing, neither Berry nor Smith have returned my phone calls or responded to my e-mails asking questions such as: How did they become acquainted? When did they first discuss her retirement and his possible candidacy?

I have received some pushback on this post, but even more encouragement from activists who are as disappointed by the insider dealing as I am. Iowa Democratic leaders seeking more grassroots involvement should think about the message these last-minute handovers send to ordinary people about the political process.

I learned today that California law extends the filing period by five days if a state legislative incumbent does not file for re-election. Five days isn’t “enough” time to give serious consideration to a campaign, but it would be better than nothing. The Iowa House and Senate should adopt similar language to prevent insiders from treating a seat in the public’s house like a private club membership.

UPDATE: Mentioned in the previous post but should add here as well that Nebraska law sets an earlier filing deadline for incumbents across the board. Iowa could adopt that approach rather than California’s.

SECOND UPDATE: Ben Nesselhuf commented,

As a grassroots activist in Woodbury County, I can assure you that the only people cut out of the loop were the [R]epublicans. The search for Dave’s successor ranged far and wide. Anyone with any association with the party who had ever expressed an interest in running, and several who hadn’t, was approached. This was not decided in some smoke filled backroom.

THIRD UPDATE: Democratic State Representative Brian Meyer posted this revealing comment on March 20: “I can assure you everyone knew about the retirements well in advance. It was not nothing [sic] wrong with anything my leadership did. It is hard to find candidates.”

Note Meyer’s use of the word “everyone,” apparently to connote members of the Iowa House Democratic caucus and select party activists. Clearly “everyone” did not know about the lawmakers’ impending retirements. On the contrary, I have heard two separate reports of people directly asking Dunkel about her plans, coming away with the impression that she was seeking a third term.

Meyer’s comment assumes recruiting candidates is a job for leaders before a vacancy becomes public knowledge. His perspective does not acknowledge any benefit to an open process, where people who want to run for office can come forward, even if leaders don’t know about them or prefer other prospects. Relevant background information: when former House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy resigned in 2013, leaving a safe Democratic seat open in the middle of a term, three Democrats announced their candidacies for the special election, only to have Meyer clear the field almost immediately after he expressed interest.

MARCH 21 UPDATE: Three days later, neither Ras Smith nor Deborah Berry have returned my phone calls or responded to my e-mails asking questions about how they arranged this transfer of power and why Smith was selected over all other potential Democratic candidates living in House district 62.

I forgot to mention that this Facebook thread from March 17 belies Meyer’s claim that “everyone knew about the retirements well in advance.” Democratic State Representatives Abby Finkenauer and Liz Bennett assert that they found out Berry was not running for re-election the day before the filing deadline. I have no reason to doubt their accounts.

Just in time for “Sunshine Week,” a divided Iowa Supreme Court today rejected a scheme by Warren County supervisors to evade Iowa’s open meetings law by discussing a downsizing plan individually in turns with the county administrator. Four justices agreed, “the open meetings law does prohibit the majority of a governmental body gathering in person through the use of agents or proxies to deliberate any matter within the scope of its policy-making duties outside the public view.”

Follow me after the jump for background on the case and excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices would have upheld the District Court ruling, which stated that using a county administrator as a “conduit” or “messenger” to discuss policy did not trigger state law’s requirements for an open meeting with advance public notice.

Dave Swenson

Anyone paying attention in Iowa knows that farmers benefited greatly from robust commodity prices during the earlier part of this decade, but that in recent years prices have slumped, as have the fortunes of farmers. Iowa’s farmers were credited (sometimes over-credited) with helping carry the state through the Great Recession because their boom years allowed them to buy new machinery and other agricultural durable inputs, which in turn multiplied through the Iowa economy. During down times, however, those magical multipliers stop working.

Bret Hayworth had the scoop this morning for the Sioux City Journal, and State Senator Rick Bertrand told the rest of the world at a press conference this afternoon:

“I’m Rick Bertrand, I’m real, and I’m running!” Bertrand said in announcing his candidacy [in the fourth Congressional district]. He added, “I am a viable and credible candidate, and will pose the greatest challenge Mr. King has faced in 14 years.”

Julie Stauch was a leader of the Hillary Clinton delegate group at the March 12 Polk County Democratic convention, which turned into a disaster. She responds to calls by Pat Rynard and others for longtime Polk County Democratic Party Chair Tom Henderson to resign. -promoted by desmoinesdem

I’ve seen posts this week blaming Tom Henderson for a variety of things, ranging from Caucus night to the Polk County Convention. This is wrong for two reasons.

Democratic State Representative Nancy Dunkel is in the Iowa Women’s Hall of Fame, but on Wednesday she acted more like a member of the Old Boys’ Club.

President Barack Obama decided to nominate Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. Of the six judges most often named as possible nominees, Garland was my least favorite. He’s a 60-something white guy with a lot of conservative fans whose record shows a slant toward law enforcement and against criminal defendants. We can do better.

I’ve heard speculation that the president didn’t want to “waste” a good nominee this year, knowing the Republican-controlled Senate will likely not confirm his choice. This way, all of the more appealing choices will be fresh faces for Hillary Clinton to choose from next year, if she is elected president.

My immediate concern is that GOP senators will wake up in the fall and realize that 1) Donald Trump cannot win the presidency, and 2) weakness at the top of the ticket may take down their Senate majority, so 3) they better hurry up and confirm Garland before Clinton has a chance to pick a more liberal judge.

Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 23 Republicans who voted against confirming Garland in 1997, not because of Garland’s qualifications, but because in his view, “the evidence does not support filling the [appeals court] vacancy at a cost to taxpayers of $1 million a year.”

I will update this post with more reaction after Obama’s announcement. UPDATE: Further news is after the jump.

Whether Eighth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Jane Kelly is still on President Barack Obama’s short list for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy is an open question. Multiple news organizations confirmed that she was under consideration for the appointment, and she remains a leading contender according to analysts like SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein. Julia Edwards and Jeff Mason reported for Reuters over the weekend that the “White House has narrowed its search for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee to three federal appeals court judges, Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford.” (This piece by Dylan Matthews contains short backgrounders on each of those judges.)

The conservative Judicial Crisis Network is taking no chances. They announced Friday a “a six-figure television and digital advertising campaign in several states exposing potential Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jane Kelly, as a liberal extremist.” I enclose below the video, transcript, and analysis of the 30-second commercial, which is running in Iowa because our senior Senator Chuck Grassley chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Part of the $250,000 ad buy also went toward airing the spot “during Sunday morning public affairs shows in Colorado, Indiana, North Dakota, Washington D.C. and West Virginia,” hoping to put pressure on potentially vulnerable Democratic senators.

Voters in five states weighed in on the presidential race today. This thread is for any comments related to the primaries in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, or North Carolina. Journalists have not settled on any shorthand reference for the March 15 elections; the Des Moines Register’s Jason Noble suggested “Super Tuesday. Superer Tuesday. Supererer Tuesday. Mega Tuesday. Ultra Tuesday. Uber Tuesday. Hella Tuesday. Big Tuesday and the Delegates.”

On the Republican side, today’s looking like “Four men enter, two men leave Tuesday.” Read fladem’s latest analysis of the GOP delegate race, if you haven’t already. I will update this post periodically with results as they come in. So far Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are heading toward big wins in Florida, which could give Clinton more delegates than she needs to stay on track to win the nomination. Ohio should be much closer on both sides, in part because independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries.

7:45 pm UPDATE: As expected, Marco Rubio dropped out after getting crushed in his home state. I was so wrong about Trump and Ted Cruz last year, but Rubio would have done better to run for re-election to the Senate and put off his presidential ambitions until 2020 or later.

CNN just projected Kasich to win Ohio, which keeps the “stop Trump” campaign alive, barely. But fladem has convinced me that the delegate math still favors Trump.

On the Democratic side, Clinton not only won Florida and North Carolina by apparently large margins, but has been declared the early winner in Ohio, which surprised me. Waiting for more detailed results to see how she did in the white working-class areas where Bernie Sanders exceeded expectations in Iowa, New Hampshire, and most recently in Michigan.

Further updates are after the jump.

Conservative Republican Robert Rees announced this afternoon that he is ending the U.S. Senate campaign he launched in January. He explained in a statement posted on his campaign’s website,

Due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the subsequent entrance in to the race by former Lt. Governor Patty Judge, the dynamics of the U.S. Senate race in Iowa have changed.

While we are on pace to get on the ballot, I have decided to not run for U.S. Senate at this time.

Rees had been struggling to collect enough signatures to qualify for the GOP primary ballot. Nominating papers must be submitted to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office by the close of business this Friday, March 18. At this writing, Grassley and two of his four declared Democratic challengers (tate Senator Rob Hogg and former State Senator Tom Fiegen) have qualified to run in the June 7 primary. Former State Representative Bob Krause and Judge have not yet submitted their petitions.

Although Rees was never positioned to defeat Grassley, I regret his exit from the race, because his performance on June 7 would have signaled how many highly engaged Iowa Republicans are dissatisfied with the party’s most popular establishment figure. Little-known Tom Hoefling won just under 17 percent of the vote in his 2014 GOP primary challenge to Governor Terry Branstad.

Another revealing look at the battle for the Republican nomination. Click here to read fladem’s earlier analysis of the GOP delegate race. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Before Super Tuesday I wrote a piece here suggesting that the talk in the aftermath of those contests would be a brokered convention. That was right, I think. In fact, if you look at the delegate math today, Trump is actually further from a majority than he was before Super Tuesday. As an aside, a real time delegate projection is here.

But politics is not just measured in delegates won.

I had a feeling this open seat would prove too tempting for just one Democrat. Abbie Weipert announced at the Johnson County Democratic Convention on March 12 that she will run for Iowa House district 77. North Liberty Mayor Amy Nielsen declared her candidacy a few weeks ago, hours after Democratic State Representative Sally Stutsman made her retirement plans public.

Weipert’s campaign is on the web here and on Facebook here. I enclose below the statement she released today as well as information about her experience and and political priorities. Scroll to the end of this post for a map of House district 77, which includes North Liberty, Tiffin, Oxford, and other areas in western and southern Johnson County.

Bleeding Heartland will not endorse a candidate in this primary. Nielsen, Weipert, or others supporting their campaigns are welcome to post guest commentaries here. Before writing, please read the site guidelines on advocating for Democratic candidates.

Republicans Paula Dreeszen and Royce Phillips are also seeking to represent House district 77. The winner of the Democratic primary will be favored in the general election. House district 77 contains 7,736 active registered Democrats, 5,681 Republicans, and 7,070 no-party voters, according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. President Barack Obama won more than 58 percent of the vote here in 2012, and Bruce Braley outpolled Joni Ernst by 9 points in the district despite the 2014 Republican wave.

Final note: I sincerely appreciate Stutsman’s sense of fair play in letting her constituents know last month that she did not plan to seek re-election. Iowa has an unfortunate bipartisan tradition of state lawmakers waiting until a day or two before the filing deadline to announce their retirement. That tactic allows insiders to hand-pick a replacement without giving other politically active people time to consider running for the open seat.

UPDATE: Forgot to add that the Iowa House Democrats sent out Nielsen’s campaign announcement. At this writing, the have not sent Weipert’s press release, which suggests that party insiders favor Nielsen.

SECOND UPDATE: I sought comment from Weipert on whether she was active in any of the presidential campaigns before the Iowa caucuses. She was a precinct captain for Hillary Clinton in Clear Creek Amana. Nielsen and Stutsman were also active Clinton supporters.

Six-term U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley qualified for the Republican primary ballot today after submitting more than 20,000 signatures to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office on Friday. But Grassley’s would-be GOP challenger Robert Rees is struggling to meet the March 18 deadline to submit at least 3,331 valid signatures from at least ten Iowa counties. In an e-mail blast on Saturday, Rees asserted, “part of the reason we’ve had a tough time getting the signatures required is because the establishment doesn’t want me on the ballot.”

Record-breaking attendance at this year’s Republican caucuses created good opportunities for GOP candidates to put their nominating papers in front of activists around the state. However, Rees asserted in the e-mail (enclosed in full below) that only eight of the 99 GOP county chairs helped his campaign collect signatures on caucus night. His campaign sent petition forms to the 30 largest counties ahead of this weekend’s county conventions, but “Early on in the day on March 12th, we were being told that some counties were dissuading people from signing them and some didn’t put them out at all!” Rees then described and refuted “some new arguments” being used to justify denying him ballot access. Rees has been working hard in recent weeks to collect signatures–reaching out to voters at the girls state high school basketball tournament, for instance. But as of yesterday, his campaign still needed well over a thousand signatures to reach its goal. (Candidates typically submit far more than the minimum number, in case some signatures turn out to be invalid.)

If Rees ends up on the ballot for the June primary, I doubt he would receive even the 16.8 percent of the vote Tom Hoefling got in his bid for the 2014 gubernatorial nomination against Terry Branstad. It’s interesting that GOP leaders are actively working against his efforts to qualify for the primary, though. I guess they don’t want someone traveling the state for the next two and a half months telling voters that Grassley has been in office too long.