Former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy shares his memories of an important legislative victory twelve years ago. -promoted by Laura Belin

Last month Iowans celebrated ten years of marriage equality. Two years prior, the legislature added protections for LGBTQ people to Iowa’s civil rights law. One of my children asked me to share that experience in writing. What you are about to read is an excerpt.

Only three months in, 2019 is already the most significant year for transgender equality in Iowa since 2007, when state lawmakers and Governor Chet Culver added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. That 1965 law hadn’t been significantly amended in decades.

The crucial Iowa House and Senate votes on the civil rights law happened during the first year since the 1960s that Democrats controlled both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. Support for LGBTQ equality is often taken for granted now in Democratic circles, but the issue was seen as more politically volatile twelve years ago. The bill amending the civil rights act came late in the 2007 legislative session and could not have passed without some Republican votes.

Gubernatorial candidate John Norris announced a statewide steering committee yesterday with more than 90 “current and former state legislators, public officials, party activists and officers, farmers, educators, students, labor leaders and business owners.”

State Representatives Marti Anderson and Jo Oldson became the first two Iowa House Democrats to back Norris, joined by former State Representatives Brian Quirk, Andrew Wenthe, Mark Kuhn, Deo Koenigs, and Roger Thomas, and former State Senators Daryl Beall, Bill Hutchins, and Lowell Junkins (who was the 1986 Democratic nominee for governor).

Other notable endorsers include Brad Anderson, who managed Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign in Iowa and was the 2014 Democratic nominee for secretary of state, former Iowa Democratic Party executive director Norm Sterzenbach, and Marcia Nichols, the longtime political director for the public employee union AFSCME. Candidates won’t release their fundraising reports until January, but I doubt these three would publicly back Norris unless they were confident that he would have the resources to compete on a statewide level before the primary. Anderson, Sterzenbach, and Nichols were part of State Representative Todd Prichard’s leadership team earlier this year. Prichard left the governor’s race in August and endorsed Fred Hubbell yesterday.

I’ve posted below the full Norris steering committee list, along with a November 20 e-mail blast from Brad Anderson and a Facebook post by Marti Anderson.

Bleeding Heartland readers may recognize the names of other Norris endorsers, such as Jess Vilsack (the former governor’s son), former Vilsack aide Dusky Terry, 2016 Iowa House candidate Heather Matson, and Kevin Techau, who was U.S. attorney for Iowa’s Northern District from 2014 until this March. Dave Swenson and Matt Russell have been occasional guest authors at this site. Emilene Leone is one of the newly-engaged Scott County activists profiled in this post. Bill Sueppel represented Muscatine Mayor Diana Broderson during her impeachment hearings and later in her civil lawsuit, resolved last month in her favor.

Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread. Bleeding Heartland previously posted audio and transcripts of stump speeches by all seven contenders and a comprehensive list of current or former state lawmakers who have endorsed a gubernatorial candidate.

State Representative Todd Prichard spoke to a packed room at last night’s Northwest Des Moines Democrats meeting. Now in his third term representing Floyd and Chickasaw counties in the Iowa House, Prichard is ranking member on the Agriculture Committee and also serves on Natural Resources, Veterans, and Ways and Means, as well as on an Appropriations subcommittee. Pat Rynard recently profiled the army veteran and former prosecutor who may run for governor in 2018.

I’ve transcribed most of Prichard’s remarks from the Des Moines gathering below and uploaded the audio file, for those who want to listen. He speaks directly and fluidly without coming across as rehearsed or too polished, a common problem for politicians.

At one point, Prichard commented that Republicans didn’t spend a million dollars trying to defeat him last year, as the GOP and conservative groups did against several Iowa Senate Democratic incumbents. Republicans tested some negative messages against him with a telephone poll in August, but apparently didn’t sense fertile ground. Prichard’s opponent Stacie Stokes received little help from her party, compared to some other GOP candidates for Iowa House seats, including a challenger in a nearby district.

Based on the speech I heard on Tuesday, I would guess that if Prichard runs for governor, Republicans may regret not spending a million dollars against him in 2016.

One more point before I get to the transcript: Prichard is living proof that retiring lawmakers should not be allowed to hand-pick their own successors. When State Representative Brian Quirk resigned to take another job soon after winning re-election in 2012, he wanted his former high school football coach Tom Sauser to take his place. As a Bleeding Heartland reader who’s active in Floyd County described here, Prichard decided to run for the House seat shortly before the special nominating convention and barely won the nomination.

Prichard had a chance to start his political career because several days elapsed between his learning about Quirk’s preferred successor and the House district 52 nominating convention. Too often, Iowa Democratic legislators announce plans to retire only a day or two before candidates must submit papers to the Secretary of State’s Office. If Quirk had retired right before the March 2012 filing deadline, as three House Democrats did last year, his friend with the inside track would have been the only Democrat able to replace him. Nothing against retired teachers, but Sauser was not a potential future leader of the party, as Prichard is becoming.

When bills come to the floor of the Iowa House or Senate, the outcome of the vote is typically a foregone conclusion. Leaders rarely call up bills that don’t have the votes to pass. But in “the most surprising vote of the day, if not this year’s session,” Iowa House members on Friday rejected House File 2472, a bill designed to expand broadband access in small-town and rural Iowa. The initiative was among Governor Terry Branstad’s legislative priorities this year. While the goal is uncontroversial, especially in communities where people are stuck with dialup internet, lawmakers disagreed on how to accomplish the task.

The House Journal for April 25 includes details from the floor debate, including roll calls on two Democratic amendments that failed to pass on party-line votes. One of them was a “strike” amendment replacing the entire content of House File 2472 with stronger incentives favored by House Democrats. After the routine business of rejecting minority party amendments, a vote was called on final passage. But only 42 Republicans voted yes, joined by just two Democrats. I’ve posted a list of yes and no votes after the jump. House Minority Leader Mark Smith said Democrats opposed the bill because it “does not go far enough in expanding broadband access to more homes and small businesses.” The Republicans who voted no may have been put off by the size of the tax breaks or the lack of accountability. State Representative Guy Vander Linden told Radio Iowa, “We don’t say they need to meet any requirements in terms of our capacity, speed – anything. All we say is: ‘If you will put broadband infrastructure in place in any unserved or underserved area…we’ll give you all these benefits.’ That, to me, sounds like a blank check that I’m not willing to sign up to.”

House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer has already filed a motion to reconsider the vote on this bill, so leaders may believe they can find the votes they need through friendly persuasion or arm-twisting. (She was one of the “no” votes, presumably to preserve her ability to file the bill again after realizing it would not pass.) Two Republicans (Clel Baudler and Ron Jorgensen) were absent from Friday’s vote. Assuming they support the broadband bill and Upmeyer changes her vote, House leaders would need to persuade four more Republicans or Democrats.

The Iowa Senate wrapped up its work for the year shortly after midnight on May 23, and Iowa House members adjourned about 11 hours later. Lawmakers in both parties have been congratulating themselves for compromising on some big issues that ended in stalemate the previous two years. Rod Boshart compiled an excellent list of what the legislature did and didn’t approve during 2013.

We all can appreciate the desire to finish a big project before a holiday weekend, and since legislators stopped receiving per diem payments weeks ago, they understandably wanted to get out of town as quickly as possible. However, I found it disturbing that votes were held before most lawmakers, let alone members of the public, had time to digest final conference committee deals on education reform, an alternative to Medicaid expansion, property taxes, and the health and human services budget. Transparency isn’t just a buzzword. Had journalists and advocacy groups been able to look over the last-minute compromises, people might have discovered problematic language or even simple drafting errors, which could produce unintended consequences after Governor Terry Branstad signs these bills into law.

I have a lot of questions about the final education reform bill and the plan to provide health insurance to low-income Iowans, particularly those earning between 101 percent and 138 percent of the poverty level. I also need more time to sort through the budget numbers and final changes to the standings bill. After the holiday weekend Bleeding Heartland will examine the important results of the legislative session in more detail. For now, I’ve posted after the jump details on who voted for and against the major bills approved this week.

UPDATE: In the May 24 edition of the On Iowa Politics podcast, statehouse reporters Mike Wiser and James Lynch discussed how the big issues came together “behind closed doors,” with no public scrutiny or oversight. Lynch commented that to his knowledge, the conference committee named to resolve the impasse over Medicaid expansion never formally met, except perhaps for one organizational meeting. Lynch recounted one occasion when Iowa House Republican Dave Heaton was briefing journalists about the health care talks, and the journalists asked when that happened, since there hadn’t been any public notices of conference committee meetings. According to Lynch, Heaton replied, “We’re not having meetings, but we’re meeting.” Senate President Pam Jochum said that negotiations between Democratic State Senator Amanda Ragan and House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer produced the “key to Iowa’s health care compromise.” Notably, Upmeyer didn’t have a prominent role in passing the House health insurance plan, nor was she named to the conference committee assigned to merge the House and Senate proposals.

Speaking to journalists on May 22, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Jochum weren’t able to answer a specific question about compromise wording reached regarding Medicaid coverage of abortions. That was no minor issue–it was the last sticking point holding up approval of the health and human services budget. In effect, Gronstal told journalists, you can see the wording after the final bill is published.

Factory farm advocates failed in 2009 to circumvent the Iowa DNR’s rulemaking on applying manure over frozen and snow-covered ground. Then they failed in 2010 to win passage of a bill designed to weaken Iowa’s newly-adopted regulations on manure storage and application.

But this year, the Iowa Pork Producers Association succeeded in convincing state lawmakers to relax requirements for CAFO operators to be able to store their own manure properly. All they had to do was dress up their effort as an attempt to help families with aspiring young farmers.

The Iowa House will begin its 2013 session next Monday with 53 Republicans, 46 Democrats and one seat to be filled in a special election on January 22.

After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa House majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing House committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since last year’s legislative session.

Some non-political Iowa House trivia: three state representatives have the surname Olson (not counting Democrat Jo Oldson). There are two Millers, two Taylors, and two Smiths, one from each party in every case. David is most common first name: the new cohort contains three Daves and two Davids. Four state representatives have the first name Mark, four are called Daniel (three go by Dan) and four were given the name Robert (two Robs, one Bob, and a Bobby). Four women are named Mary (one goes by Mary Ann), and two are named Linda. There are two men each named Greg, Chuck, John, Kevin, Pat, Bruce, Tom, and Chris, and there would have been two Brians if Brian Quirk had not resigned shortly after winning re-election. Oddly, no current Iowa House member is named Mike or Michael.

JANUARY 28 UPDATE: Democrat Todd Prichard won the special election in House district 52, bringing the number of Todds in the Iowa House to two. I’ve added his committee assignments below. Republicans maintain a 53-47 majority.

UPDATE: Todd has an ActBlue account.  You can help put another Democrat in the Iowa House at: https://secure.actblue.com/entity/fundraiser/33307

_______________________________________________

Democrats in House District 52 held a contested convention last night to choose a candidate to replace Brian Quirk, who resigned a few weeks after winning reelection.  Two candidates came forward: retired teacher Tom Sauser of New Hampton and Todd Prichard, a lawyer from Charles City. Prichard won with 4988 allocated votes to 3790 for Sauser.

Tom Sauser deserves appreciation for being willing to step forward and run.  Running for office is no walk in the park in any season, but January in Iowa, two months after a national election, during the Christmas season, has to be the worst possible timing.

He was the first to enter the race, and was recruited by Quirk, a  conservative Democrat who was, until recently, a member of ALEC. Sauser taught middle school for 38 years, and retired in 2011.  He conceded that he was not conversant with many issues affecting the state, but committed to learn as much as he could, and listen to his constituents.  His speech, which he read from prepared remarks, was well-received. He had introduced himself to Floyd County Democrats in a meeting on Wednesday last week, a meeting that Prichard attended. It was clear from that meeting that Sauser had a steep learning curve ahead of him, but anyone in that room would have preferred him to the various far-right Republicans who are rumored to be running.The Chickasaw County delegates clearly regarded him with respect and affection.

Todd Prichard left the Wednesday meeting thinking about running himself.  He called Floyd Democrats through the weekend and made the decision on Sunday. He immediately had the support of many of the people who have been knocking doors in Floyd County throughout 2012.  He is an activist–always there when there is a candidate event or grunt work to do, and very well-liked.

By Monday evening, the word was out that the convention would not be a pro-forma event, and delegates showed up from all but one precinct in Cerro Gordo and two precincts in Chickasaw.  Because of redistricting, Chickasaw and Floyd Counties were combined for the first time in the 2012 election, and activists from each county were wearing name tags and introducing themselves to one another. With a coin flip, Prichard chose to speak second, so Sauser spoke first.  Each candidate gave gracious assurances to the other that he would support the victor.

More on the convention, and what Prichard had to say, below the fold.

Former New Hampton Tribune newspaper publisher Dan Feuling is the first declared Republican candidate for the January 22 special election in Iowa House district 52 (hat tip to John Deeth). Feuling told the New Hampton Tribune that Governor Terry Branstad “called me to ask me to run.” It’s not clear whether any other Republican will step forward before a special district nominating convention.

Feuling’s likely Democratic opponent is Tom Sauser, a retired teacher and coach recruited by outgoing State Representative Brian Quirk.

A district map and the latest voter registration numbers in Iowa House district 52 are after the jump.

Tom Sauser, a retired middle school teacher and New Hampton High School coach, declared his candidacy yesterday in Iowa House district 52. A special election to replace Democratic State Representative Brian Quirk will take place in early 2013. Bleeding Heartland posted a district map and voter registration numbers here.

After the jump I’ve posted Sauser’s campaign announcement, which includes a short bio. He was Quirk’s high school football coach. A lot of Iowa House members are current or retired teachers. They can be good candidates, because hundreds or thousands of potential constituents are former students or relatives of students.

I’ll be interested to see whether any Democrat from Floyd County seeks the nomination in this race. Both parties will hold choose candidates for House district 52 in special district nominating conventions.

UPDATE: Quirk confirms that he recruited Sauser, and Craig Clark of Floyd County says he will run in the special election, probably as an independent. Clark received about 29 percent of the vote as an independent candidate against Quirk this year. No Republican ran for the seat.

SECOND UPDATE: Governor Terry Branstad set the special election for Tuesday, January 22. That’s the week after the 2013 legislative session begins.

Yesterday the Iowa House Democrats announced ranking members for all the standing and appropriations committees for the 2013 legislative session. Below I’ve posted the full list of House minority leaders and ranking members. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since last year. House Democrats will start the session with 46 caucus members, because State Representative Brian Quirk just resigned his seat.

House Republicans named all the committee chairs earlier this week.

Talk about a bolt from the blue: State Representative Brian Quirk announced today that he is resigning from the Iowa House. His decision forces a special election in House district 52, where voters just elected the Democrat to his seventh term.

UPDATE: Added details on Quirk’s new job below.

State Representative Brian Quirk announced today that he is no longer a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which lobbies for a wide range of conservative and corporate-friendly policies in state legislatures. Up to now, Quirk had been the only ALEC member among the 40 Democrats in the Iowa House.

Follow me after the jump for background and details on Quirk’s decision, as well as recent comments about ALEC by former Iowa House Democrat Dolores Mertz.

The redistricting process and several Republican retirements have created many pickup opportunities for Iowa House Democrats. The devastating 2010 election left them nowhere to go but up in the lower chamber, where Republicans currently enjoy a 60 to 40 majority. Relatively few sitting House Democrats represent vulnerable districts.

Speaking to activists at the Polk County Democratic convention on March 10, I heard lots of optimism about the House races. After the jump I’ve posted some early thoughts on the seats up for grabs.

All 40 Iowa House Democrats left the state capitol this morning to protest Republican House leaders’ plans to debate a bill and a proposed constitutional amendment that are among gun advocates’ highest legislative priorities.

UPDATE: Democrats returned late in the day, and I’ve added details below on the House floor debate and passage of both bills the evening of February 29.

The Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate passed two bills today favored by corporate agricultural interest groups. House File 589, the notorious “ag gag” bill, seeks to prevent whistleblowers from reporting alleged abuse at agricultural facilities. Senate File 2172 would reduce the number of sows that confined-animal feeding operations need to report for manure management purposes. Details on the bills and how senators voted are after the jump.

UPDATE: Bypassing normal legislative procedures, the Republican-controlled Iowa House also passed the “ag gag” bill on February 28. Scroll down for details on how the state representatives voted.  

Although the 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats in the Iowa House haven’t changed since last year, I thought it was worth updating this post, because some committee assignments have changed, and House Democrats reshuffled their ranking members somewhat.

Majority and minority leadership teams are after the jump, along with all members of standing House committees. All 100 House districts are on the ballot every two years, so I’ve noted the new district numbers for state representatives seeking re-election in 2012, as well as which House members have said they will retire after this year’s legislative session.

The state agency Iowa Workforce Development has replaced 36 field offices with hundreds of new “enhanced access” computer terminals this year.

Although the shuttered offices are unlikely ever to reopen, they may live on as talking points in many competitive Iowa House and Senate races next fall.

Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa published its scorecard of Iowa legislators and gave its “Champion Award” to two Iowa House Democrats: State Representatives Janet Petersen and Beth Wessel-Kroeschell.

Details from the 2011 legislative update are after the jump. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO Jill June described this year as “the worst legislative session for women in my 25 years at Planned Parenthood.”

On a mostly party-line vote, the Iowa House passed the country’s most restrictive late-term abortion ban yesterday. The move put House Republicans on record opposing abortions after 20 weeks gestation, but in effect ends any chance that Omaha-based Dr. Leroy Carhart will face legal obstacles to opening a new abortion clinic in Iowa.

Details on yesterday’s House vote and the amended Senate File 534 are after the jump.  

After more than five hours of debate, the Iowa House on April 26 approved a bill to let MidAmerican Energy charge consumers for costs associated with a nuclear reactor it may or may not build in the coming decade. House File 561 passed 68 to 30. All Republicans present except two voted yes, joined by 12 House Democrats: Deborah Berry (district 22), Chris Hall (district 2), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (district 67), Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Pat Murphy (district 28), Rick Olson (district 68), Brian Quirk (district 15), Mark Smith (district 43), Phyllis Thede (district 81), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), John Wittneben (district 7) and Mary Wolfe (district 26). The remaining 29 House Democrats voted against the bill. Two Republicans voted no: Guy Vander Linden (district 75) and Kim Pearson (district 42).

Details on the House debate and efforts to amend the bill are after the jump, along with some speculation about its prospects in the Senate and thoughts about the coalitions lobbying for and against it.  

Overshadowed by other news from the capitol this week, the Iowa House approved the first budget bill of the 2011 session. In keeping with Governor Terry Branstad’s desire to move Iowa to biennial budgeting, the House Appropriations Committee wrote House File 642 to include two years of funding for the Department of Transportation. In most areas of the DOT’s work, House File 642 allocates the same amount of money for fiscal year 2013 (July 2012 through June 2013) as it does for fiscal year 2012 (beginning this July, ending next June).

Since Iowa Republicans have promised countless times not to spend more than the state takes in, it’s important to remember that there are no Iowa revenue forecasts for fiscal year 2013. The Revenue Estimating Conference meets periodically to revise revenue projections for the current budget year and the one to come, but even the most preliminary numbers for fiscal year 2013 have yet to appear. Iowa law restricts general fund spending to no more than 99 percent of projected revenues, but if Republicans who control the Iowa House write the remaining budget bills they way they wrote House File 642, they will have no idea whether they are spending 89 percent or 99 percent or 109 percent of state revenues in 2013. They’ll be making a shot in the dark.

Over the last several decades, many states have moved away from biennial budgeting. It’s hard enough to forecast revenues 12-18 months into the future, let alone for a full year beyond that. Minnesota’s use of biennial budgets is one reason why its fiscal problems during the “Great Recession” were much worse than Iowa’s. But at least in Minnesota, lawmakers have two-year revenue projections to work with when they draft a two-year spending plan. Iowa House Republicans seem ready to take on faith that revenues will be at least as high in fiscal year 2013 as in fiscal year 2012.

State Representative Tyler Olson, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, argued against pulling numbers “out of thin air” for House File 642. During floor debate on March 30, he offered an amendment to make the bill cover one fiscal year instead. His amendment failed on a party-line 58 to 40 vote (pdf). Shortly after, House File 642 passed 60 to 39, with only Democrat Brian Quirk (district 15) joining all Republicans present to vote yes. House File 642 contains a $5.2 million appropriation to replace a facility in New Hampton (Chickasaw County), which is in Quirk’s district.

In the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate, biennial budgeting will be a tough sell. I expect the Senate Appropriations Committee to strike all fiscal year 2013 appropriations from House File 642. Add this to the list of contentious budget issues that Senate Democrats, the governor and House Republicans must settle during the next month. I have no idea what concessions either side will be willing to make.

Speaking of transportation, Bleeding Heartland readers may recall that Branstad hasn’t yet appointed a new director for the Iowa DOT. Instead, he asked Nancy Richardson to stay on in that role through the end of the 2011 legislative session. Branstad’s spokesman said in December that the administration needed extra time to do a nationwide search for a director. That would be unlike the way Branstad filled other state government positions. Jason Clayworth reported this week that as governor-elect, Branstad interviewed only one candidate for many jobs. Often Branstad overlooked all applicants to choose a person who hadn’t even applied for the position.

“In most cases I sought out people for these positions,” Branstad said. “Some of them applied, but, for the most part, I really went after people who I thought would be the best.”

I still wonder whether Branstad has always had a particular person in mind to run the DOT. Delaying that appointment until after the legislative session would make sense if Branstad’s choice was unavailable until late spring or summer, or was controversial enough to face problems during the Iowa Senate confirmation process.

Governor Terry Branstad’s plan to transform the Iowa Department of Economic Development into a public-private partnership won approval from the Iowa House this week. House File 590 would create an Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress, with three separate boards supervising various aspects of economic development work. Supporters say they have worked to make Branstad’s preferred model more transparent, but its convoluted structure invites the kind of abuses seen in other states where private entities have control over economic development incentives.

More details on House File 590 and its path through the Iowa House are after the jump.

Although the 60-40 Republican majority leaves Iowa House Democrats few opportunities to block legislation, the Democratic caucus has taken a high-profile stands against some GOP proposals this year. House Democrats spoke passionately against preschool cuts in the first major bill of the 2011 session. Democrats fought the GOP’s bill to restrict collective bargaining at public rallies, all night in the House Labor Committee and for days on the House floor. The ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee spoke out against the GOP’s income tax cut bill, and Democrats tried to redirect that proposal toward middle income Iowans.

In contrast, House Democrats have made little noise about bills that elevate the needs of agribusiness over the public interest. Earlier this month, nearly a quarter of the Democratic caucus voted to protect factory farms from undercover recordings to expose animal abuses. I saw no public comments from House minority leaders opposing that bill, which may well be unconstitutional.

Last week state representatives approved House File 643, which transfers several water quality responsibilities from the Department of Natural Resources to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. After minimal floor debate, seven Democrats voted with all the Republicans present for a bill that would impair efforts to limit water pollution. I saw no public comments or press releases from House minority leaders criticizing the bill or decrying its passage.

Follow me after the jump for more on House File 643 and its implications.

The Iowa House on Thursday approved House File 589, which establishes new civil and criminal penalties for various offenses on farms, including unauthorized audio or video recordings. Nine House Democrats joined all of the Republicans present to pass the bill on a 66 to 27 vote. Click here for the full bill text (here’s a pdf version). The House Journal includes the roll call on this bill. The Democrats who voted yes were Deborah Berry (district 22), Dan Kelley (district 41), Helen Miller (district 49), Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Brian Quirk (district 15), Roger Thomas (district 24), Kurt Swaim (district 94), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), and John Wittneben (district 7). Most of them represent largely rural or small-town areas, except for Berry, whose district includes part of Waterloo.

I’ve posted some of the controversial language in House File 589 after the jump. The bill raises constitutional questions; last year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty, citing First Amendment concerns. Yesterday in Des Moines,

Dan Hauff, investigations director for Chicago-based Mercy for Animals, said the law is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. He said it would inhibit investigative journalists from reporting on animal cruelty, environmental hazards and food safety issues on farms. He said the organization might bring litigation if the bill becomes law, but he hoped it wouldn’t make it that far.

Senator Tom Harkin said yesterday he hadn’t studied details on House File 589, but he argued against the idea behind the policy.

“Thankfully, because of whistleblowers and others doing undercover work, we are finding out about a lot of the abuses that are taking place in animal agriculture – and some of those abuses have just been awful,” Harkin said during a conference call with reporters.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Annette Sweeney, a cattle farmer who is the lead sponsor on this bill, defended the legislation, saying, “We are completely concerned about the health and well-being of our animals on our farms, and if we have individuals coming onto our farms and filming and not telling us they’re there, we are sincerely worried about the health and biosecurity.” Speaking for Democrats who voted against House File 589, State Representative Pat Murphy argued that “the overwhelming majority of farmers and people who own breeding facilities in Iowa operate very reputable businesses and treat their animals well,” but “you have to wonder” what the few who have problems at their facilities want to hide.

Des Moines-based advertising specialist Michael Libbie considers this bill a big public relations mistake:

[P]assing such legislation controlling and making the filming and distribution illegal makes ag look….bad.  Very bad. […]

At a time when agriculture needs more, not less, friends and at a time when so many people have horrible misconceptions about farming and nearly zero relationships with farmers and ranchers…this bill is ill advised.  Bad idea for agriculture, bad idea for farmers and ranchers….this will only fuel the fires of those who already think animal agriculture is evil.  And for those who don’t, they  just might start wondering, “So, what is going on they don’t want me to know about?”

I expect the Iowa Senate to approve this bill with minimal changes, and Governor Terry Branstad to sign it. Ultimately, courts will probably decide whether House File 589 or similar legislation being considered in Florida goes too far in restricting free speech.

UPDATE: A Bleeding Heartland reader commented by e-mail that Republicans like James O’Keefe’s secret sting videos (against NPR or ACORN, for example). Why should big ag receive special protection against that kind of exposure?

Republican elected officials are sending a mixed message about Iowa’s finances. Before the 2011 legislative session began, Republicans were outraged about a so-called “unaffordable” union contract that would give state workers modest raises, at a cost of about $100 million a year for two years.  Barely a week into the session, a party-line Iowa House vote approved a broad “deappropriations” bill, in which about a third of the savings came from cutting Iowa’s preschool grant for four-year-olds. The universal voluntary preschool program was expected to cost $70 million to $75 million per year (according to Legislative Services Agency estimates), or up to $90 million by some other estimates.

Since then, House Republicans have passed House File 185, which allows zero growth in K-12 education budgets for the next two fiscal years. That was an unprecedented move. In nearly 40 years, the Iowa legislature has never approved less than 1 percent allowable growth for school district budgets: not during the farm crisis, not during the recessions and budget crunches of the early 1980s, early 1990s, 2001-02 or 2009-10. Now, we are told, our dire fiscal condition doesn’t leave any room to spend $65 million to allow school districts to increase their budgets by 2 percent.

Yet on February 16, the Iowa House approved House File 194 on a mostly party-line vote. The bill would cut Iowa’s individual income tax rates by 20 percent, which the Legislative Services Agency estimates would cost $330 million during fiscal year 2012 and more than $700 million in each of the next three fiscal years.  How Iowa can afford that loss of revenue and what services would be cut to keep the budget balanced, House Republicans don’t say.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad plans to lay off hundreds of state workers to cut labor costs and sent state legislators a draft budget with no allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years. This week Branstad offered a preschool plan that would support fewer children at a lower cost ($43 million per year). He and his Department of Education director, Jason Glass, have repeatedly said Iowa cannot afford to continue the preschool program as currently structured. Yet Branstad’s plan to cut corporate taxes in half would deprive the state of at least $100 million in revenues. He has proposed about $450 million in commercial property tax cuts, with the idea that state government would reimburse local governments for much of that lost revenue. If our budget constraints are so severe, how can we afford those policies?

More context on the state budget is after the jump, along with details on the Iowa Senate’s resistance to Republican tax and education funding proposals.

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats’ speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state’s interest in promoting childbearing:

“We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation.”

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar “slippery slope” concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one’s tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren’t eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland “answered” Willems’ question, but in a non-responsive way.  

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they’re doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as “government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.” Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today’s debate. Many must realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A “loud and proud” statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today’s Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been “wrong” to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they’d had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.

When the 84th General Assembly convenes on January 10, the Iowa House will have 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. House Republicans selected leaders and committee chairs last month, and Democrats finished choosing leaders and ranking committee members in the past two weeks.

All Iowa House leaders, committee chairs and ranking members can be found after the jump. I’ve included a link to a short biography for each state representative, as well as the year the person was first elected to the Iowa House and the district he or she represents.  

Democrats suffered big losses in the Iowa House and Senate last night. Assuming no results change through recounts, the House is likely to switch from 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans to 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats. I’ve seen some online references to a 58-42 split, but that’s not how the count looks based on unofficial results posted on the Secretary of State’s website.

Democrats maintain control of the Iowa Senate, but their majority shrank from 32-18 to 27-23. Governor-elect Terry Branstad should easily be able to get his agenda through the Iowa House, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal may have trouble keeping his caucus united.

UPDATE: Late returns could change the outcome in two Senate seats; it’s possible the chamber could have a 25-25 split, or a 26-24 Democratic majority.

SECOND UPDATE: A few more races could switch as more absentee ballots come in. As of Wednesday evening, Democrat Tom Schueller is now trailing in House district 25 by about 150 votes.

Here’s my take on the seats that changed hands and the near-misses.

The Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s political arm, the Iowa Industry PAC, released its first round of state legislative endorsements today. According to the PAC’s chairman Kirk Tyler, these “Friends of Iowa Business” have “demonstrated a commitment to improve Iowa’s business climate so that employers can create more jobs and grow the economy.”

During legislative sessions, the Iowa ABI often appears to act as a proxy for the Republican Party of Iowa, so I wasn’t surprised to see that most of Iowa Industry PAC’s favored candidates are Republican incumbents and challengers. But look who else made the list of “Friends of Iowa Business”: Democratic State Representatives McKinley Bailey, Brian Quirk, Doris Kelley, Dave Jacoby, Geri Huser, Larry Marek, and Mike Reasoner, and Democratic State Senators Rich Olive, Wally Horn and Matt McCoy.

Bailey, Quirk, Kelley, Huser and Marek were members of the “six-pack” that blocked passage of a prevailing wage bill in 2009. (The sixth Democrat who refused to support that bill was Dolores Mertz; she is retiring.) Jacoby spoke out against a union-backed “fair share” bill during the 2010 session. Reasoner serves on the House Commerce Committee and was able to keep a payday lending bill stuck in subcommittee during this year’s session.

A few of the Iowa Industry PAC’s endorsements mean little of consequence. Geri Huser and Brian Quirk represent safe Democratic districts, as does Dave Jacoby, whose only opponent is a Libertarian. Horn doesn’t have a Republican opponent either, and McCoy’s GOP challenger is an anti-abortion extremist.

On the other hand, some of the endorsed Democrats are among the GOP’s top targets. First-termer Marek represents the difficult southeast Iowa terrain of House district 89. He squeaked by in 2008 and faces the same opponent for a second time this year, without Barack Obama’s coat-tails.

Republicans also have a registration advantage in House district 9 in north-central Iowa, which Bailey has represented for two terms. The ABI PAC endorsement in this race is even more striking because Bailey’s opponent is Republican heavyweight Stew Iverson, a former Iowa Senate majority leader.

Kelley has represented House district 20 in Waterloo for two terms. Her challenger, Walt Rogers, came within a couple dozen votes of unseating State Senator Jeff Danielson in 2008. This district has a few hundred more registered Republicans than Democrats.

Reasoner is a four-term incumbent from House district 95 in southern Iowa, where Republicans have a registration advantage of nearly 800.

Olive represents Iverson’s old turf, Senate district 5. After Iverson retired in 2006, Olive won this seat by only 62 votes. The GOP has a registration advantage here and desperately needs this district to get back on track toward winning a majority in the Iowa Senate, perhaps in 2012 or 2014.

GOP leaders talk optimistically about winning the Iowa House this year, but that can’t happen unless they beat Marek, Bailey, Kelley, and Reasoner, or at least three out of those four. Republican blogger Craig Robinson discussed the path to taking back the House here.

Share any thoughts about the business lobby or Iowa legislative races in this thread.

UPDATE: John Deeth goes over some of the conspicuous Republican names omitted from the Iowa Industry PAC endorsement list:

Indeed, the only GOP challenger on the House side I see with an ABI endorsement is Dan Rasmussen, making a comeback attempt against Gene Ficken, who knocked him off in 2008. There’s big omissions, starting with Steve Burgmeier, who narrowly lost last year’s Fairfield special to Curt Hanson in House 90. Also forgotten: Guy Vander Linden over Democrat Eric Palmer, in the Oskaloosa-Grinnell seat that’s been hot the last few cycles, and Mark Lofgren in Muscatine’s House 80, challenging Nate Reichert.

So does this mean Republicans are trying to take the House on open seats? Or is ABI, by endorsing the Five Pack, hedging its bets? In either case, the open seat targets include the Sioux City races, Mary Ann Hanusa in Turncoat Doug Struyk’s old turf, and Ross Paustian in Elesha Gayman’s House 84.

And in Waterloo, former mayor John Rooff gets no love in House 21, with a no endorsement over Democrat Anesa Kajtazovic in the open Kerry Burt seat.

Mathematically, the Republicans can’t take back the House on open seats alone. They have to beat at least a few sitting House Democrats.

A thought just occurred to me: Iverson reportedly has close ties to Iowans for Tax Relief, and that outfit ran Burgmeier’s campaign in last year’s House district 90 special election. So maybe some behind the scenes rivalry between ABI and Iowans for Tax Relief is playing out here.

The Democratic-controlled legislature failed to pass some important bills during the 2009 legislative session, including a tax reform package and all major agenda items for organized labor.

Since the fiasco that doomed the “prevailing wage” bill in February, I’ve thought that electing better Democrats to the state legislature is at least as important as electing more Democrats. With a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House, it’s ridiculous not to be able to find 51 votes for some of these bills.

According to a letter I received last weekend, Ed and Lynn Fallon of I’M for Iowa are already meeting with potential progressive challengers in some House districts. I’ve posted the full text of the letter after the jump. I share their disappointment with what the Democratic “trifecta” has accomplished since the 2006 elections.

The Fallons do not specify where they are recruiting candidates. The obvious targets are the six House Democrats who refused to support “prevailing wage.” Known in Iowa political circles as the “six-pack,” these incumbents also stood in the way of other labor bills. Of those six, Geri Huser and Dolores Mertz seem particularly likely targets, because they supported House Republican efforts to ban same-sex marriage in April. Marriage equality is one of I’M for Iowa’s priority issues.

Good opportunities for primary challengers include districts that are relatively safe for Democrats in the general election. That points to “six-pack” members Huser (House district 42), Brian Quirk (district 15) and Doris Kelley (district 20).

Challenging the rest of the group is somewhat more risky. McKinley Bailey (district 9), Larry Marek (district 89) and Dolores Mertz (district 8) represent marginal districts. In fact, first-termer Marek will probably be the most endangered Democratic House incumbent next year. Bailey beat back a strong challenge from Republicans to win a second term by a fairly healthy margin in 2008, but according to this report by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, some House Democrats have been “quietly concerned” that he might consider switching parties.

Mertz is a longtime incumbent in a very conservative district. In the unlikely event that a progressive challenger defeated her, Republicans would almost certainly pick up the seat. On the other hand, a smaller Democratic House caucus without Mertz would be an improvement over a larger caucus with Mertz, in my opinion. As chair of the House Agriculture Committee, she blocks any decent bill in sight, and she will be the Republicans’ biggest Democratic ally in the fight to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.

Two big questions come to mind. First, will organized labor put money and/or foot soldiers into serious Democratic primary races? Earlier this year, Ken Sagar of the Iowa AFL-CIO didn’t rule out supporting competitors to Democrats who are unfriendly to labor.

Second, will the Iowa House Democratic leadership spend money or political capital to defend targeted incumbents? In 2008 the Iowa Democratic Party blocked Huser’s primary challenger from access to the voter database. I heard from multiple sources at the time that the House Democrats made that call. Huser returned her colleagues’ favor by not being a team player during the general election campaign, then refusing to support the labor bills mentioned above.

I look forward to reading your comments on whether it’s worth taking on any House Democratic incumbents next year, and if so, which ones. The Fallons’ letter laying out the case for primary challenges is after the jump.

The “prevailing wage” bill fiasco finally ended on Monday:

In what officials called the longest vote in Iowa Statehouse history, House Speaker Pat Murphy at 1:09 p.m. today closed the voting machine on the prevailing wage bill after 2 days, 19 hours and 14 minutes, declaring the bill had lost.

The vote was 50-48, one vote short of passage. But then House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, switched his vote to “no” — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the bill up for reconsideration later this session. So the final vote stood at 49-49.

After the jump I consider the two eternal political questions: “What is to be done?” and “Who is to blame?”

The “prevailing wage” bill, one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities, stalled in the Iowa House on Friday as Democrats were unable to find a 51st vote. Apparently the plan is to try to twist someone’s arm over the weekend:

House Speaker Pat Murphy will keep the voting machine open the entire weekend until Democrats can convince one of their dissenting members to change their vote. The move will mean Murphy will have to sleep in the chamber over the weekend.

“I want to be sure that taxpayer money is going to responsible Iowa employers who pay a decent wage, not employers who take advantage of people like we’ve seen in Postville and Atalissa,” Murphy said. “As the presiding officer of the House, I will stay in the Speaker’s chair and the voting machine will remain open until Monday. My goal is to get 51 votes and make sure we have good-paying jobs for middle class families.”

This post is not about the merits of the bill, which I support. (Click here for background on House file 333, which “would require that companies that contract for public projects pay workers wages and benefits comparable to private projects in the area.”)

This post is about why Democratic House leaders now face two unappealing outcomes: either they fail to pass a good bill supported by a key Democratic constituency, or they force one of their members into an embarrassing about-face that could affect the next election campaign.

Further thoughts on this mess are after the jump.

I was asleep at the wheel when the Iowa House Democratic leadership made the committee assignments last week. I didn’t notice that Representative Brian Quirk of New Hampton will replace Representative Geri Huser of Altoona as chair of the Transportation Committee.

The Des Moines Register reported,

The only state lawmaker to get sacked as the head of a committee in either the Iowa House or Iowa Senate was Rep. Geri Huser of Altoona, who was chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee and is known at the Statehouse as a leading expert on road policy.

Huser is a Democrat, but a conservative one who hasn’t been afraid to challenge Democratic leaders on any given issue.

House Speaker Pat Murphy, who made the decision, declined to explain his reasoning. “I’m not going to get into a lot of discussions about it,” he said. “We make decisions like this all the time.”

Murphy complimented Huser’s work on other issues, such as taxes and local government, and said he expects good things from her during the coming session.

Asked Wednesday why she was removed from the committee, Huser said she hasn’t had a conversation with Murphy since June. She learned from news reports that she was no longer chairwoman.

Learned from news reports? Ouch.

Does anyone know why Murphy would have wanted to replace Huser? As the Register notes, she is among the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus. I am not sure whether she was committed to the “fair share” bill that never came to a vote in the Iowa House in 2007. I didn’t realize she had conflict with the House leadership, because when Matt Ballard challenged Huser in the Democratic primary for House district 42 this year, saying she had not been supportive enough of labor, the House Democrats did not allow Ballard to purchase access to the voter database (Voter Activation Network).

Some activists have suggested Huser has a conflict of interest because some of her work in the legislature and on the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization could financially benefit her family’s business interests.

If you’ve got a theory (or better yet, information) about why Quirk is replacing Huser as head of the Transportation Committee, please post a comment in this thread or send me a confidential e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

VERY LATE UPDATE: I’ve heard from multiple sources the same rumor that Cityview’s Civic Skinny reported in December: Huser was removed as chair of the House Transportation Committee because late in the election campaign she refused to give the House Democrats money to use against a vulnerable Republican incumbent. My sources say the Republican in question was Doug Struyk, who narrowly defeated Kurt Hubler in House district 99.