Polk County has long been dominated by safe Democratic Iowa House seats in the city of Des Moines and safe Republican seats in the suburbs. One of the few truly competitive recent Iowa House races in this county took place in 2008, when Republican Chris Hagenow defeated Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan by fewer than 100 votes in what was then House district 59.

Hagenow was easily re-elected in 2010. For a long time I heard nothing about anyone stepping up to challenge him in the new House district 43, where I live. Earlier this month, Susan Judkins declared her candidacy here. Background on both candidates is after the jump, along with a map and details on the district’s political makeup.

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.

As Iowa’s top state officials welcomed Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping yesterday, activists gathered in Muscatine and Des Moines to protest China’s policy of repression in Tibet. Governor Terry Branstad praised Xi and his country, gushing about the potential to expand trade and friendship between Iowa and China.

Iowa’s “pro-life” movement was nowhere to be seen and had nothing to say about Xi’s visit.

It’s been years since a pro-choice moderate Republican represented any Iowa House and Senate district in the Des Moines suburbs. In this June’s GOP primary in Senate district 22, we’ll find out whether a mainstream Republican stands a chance against a loud voice on the party’s social conservative wing.

Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker will represent Zach Edwards, a Democratic operative who is charged with attempting identity theft against Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

Wikipedia, Reddit and many other websites are dark today to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), now pending in the U.S. House and Senate. Momentum appears to have shifted against this legislation in its current form, but a modified bill might still pose a threat to freedom of information. I sought comment on this legislation from all members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation.

UPDATE: Added Representative Bruce Braley’s statement opposing SOPA below, along with a comment from Representative Steve King’s office.

LATER UPDATE: A statement from Representative Leonard Boswell is now below as well.

THURSDAY UPDATE: Added a YouTube video about SOPA, released by Braley’s re-election campaign.

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.

State Senator Bill Dix lacked the votes to follow through on his recent attempt to replace Paul McKinley as Iowa Senate Minority Leader, but he doesn’t appear ready to abandon the effort. On Wednesday State Senator Rick Bertrand publicly called for McKinley to step aside.

Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker joined Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign yesterday as Iowa co-chair. He had previously led former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s Iowa campaign effort. On Monday Pawlenty endorsed Perry’s leading rival for the Republican nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Whitaker’s partner in the Des Moines law firm Whitaker Hagenow is State Representative Chris Hagenow. He endorsed Pawlenty this summer and hasn’t publicly committed to another candidate yet.

After the jump I’ve posted part of a Perry for president press release with background on nine new staffers just hired to work field. Romney is not investing as much in his campaign’s Iowa ground game as he did before the 2008 caucuses.

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for president this morning, trying to set the media agenda as eight Republican candidates prepare to debate in Florida this evening.

Backers of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign insisted all summer that he would stay in the race at least through the Iowa caucuses, but he gave up this morning.

The Des Moines Register’s new poll of 400 likely Republican caucus-goers indicates that Representative Michele Bachmann is gaining ground. Selzer and Co surveyed Iowans between June 19 and 22, and the margin of error for the sample of likely caucus-goers is plus or minus 4.9 percent. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads the field with 23 percent support, but he has already indicated that he won’t invest heavily in Iowa this cycle. Bachmann nearly matched Romney in the Register’s poll with 22 percent. Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain placed a distant third with 10 percent, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Representative Ron Paul (7 percent each), former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (6 percent), former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (4 percent) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (2 percent).

Romney’s best numbers are among moderates, people with less than a college education, and those earning less than $50,000 per year. Bachmann did particularly well with respondents who are very conservative, well-educated and/or between the ages of 45 and 64. The encouraging poll numbers will give her more buzz just as she is scheduled to formally announce her candidacy (for the second or third time) in Waterloo on June 27.

The results are terrible for Pawlenty, who doesn’t seem to be getting any traction out of his large staff and many Iowa visits. Putting a less-bad spin on the numbers,

Republican pollster Randy Gutermuth pointed out that the Iowa Poll took place before Pawlenty’s television ads, direct mail and other paid voter outreach had time to penetrate.

“It’s way too early to be writing off Tim Pawlenty,” said Gutermuth, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate. “I’m sure they’d rather be leading today, but I don’t think they’re jumping out of buildings either.”

Maybe not jumping out of buildings, but eager to change the subject as soon as this poll came out. On June 26, Pawlenty’s campaign announced the formation of an Iowa Legislative Steering Committee. Legislators serving on the committee cover all regions of the state: Iowa Senators Randy Feenstra (district 2), Rob Bacon (district 5) and Shawn Hamerlinck (district 42), and State Representatives Chip Baltimore (district 48), Joel Fry (district 95), Erik Helland (district 69), Chris Hagenow (district 59), Steve Lukan (district 32), Linda Miller (district 82) and Matt Windschitl (district 56). Unfortunately for Pawlenty, all the endorsements in the world won’t turn things around unless the candidate starts connecting with caucus-goers. Right now Bachmann leads him even as a second choice for Iowans who prefer Romney–and that’s without any of the candidates picking apart Pawlenty’s fiscal record and heavy state borrowing.

Speaking of the Register’s opinion polls and caucus coverage, the Sunday paper announced that Jennifer Jacobs will be the Register’s chief political writer. She replaces Thomas Beaumont, who took a job with the Associated Press this spring.

Any comments about the Republican presidential race are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Douglas Burns tells us what a top British bookmaker says. Even before this poll was released, Ladbrokes gave Bachmann the best chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.

SECOND UPDATE: More detailed questions results from the new Iowa poll are here. I’ve highlighted some interesting results from the “issue” questions after the jump.

The abortion issue magically transforms conservatives from people who want to keep bureaucrats from getting between you and your doctor into people eager to let the government limit pregnant women’s medical care. The Iowa House demonstrated that contradiction again yesterday, as representatives approved a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks gestation.

House File 657 is modeled on a Nebraska statute with the intent of stopping Omaha physician Leroy Carhart from opening an abortion clinic in Iowa. State representatives voted 60 to 39 to send the bill to the Senate. The yes votes included 56 Republicans and four Democrats: Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Brian Quirk (district 15), Kurt Swaim (district 94) and Roger Thomas (district 24). Three first-term Republicans–Kim Pearson (district 42), Glen Massie (district 74) and Tom Shaw (district 8)–voted no, along with the rest of the House Democratic caucus. Those Republicans have argued against the bill because it would ban less than 1 percent of abortions in Iowa; their opposition forced House Republican leaders to pull the bill out of the House Human Resources Committee and send it to Government Oversight instead.

Excerpts from yesterday’s arguments for and against House File 657 are after the jump, along with thoughts about the bill’s prospects in the Iowa Senate.

Anti-abortion legislation that stalled earlier this year in an Iowa House committee appears likely to pass the lower chamber soon. House File 5 would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, using a “fetal pain” standard adapted from a similar bill in Nebraska. More than 30 House Republicans are co-sponsoring the bill, hoping to deter Omaha-based abortion provider Dr. Leroy Carhart from opening a clinic in Council Bluffs.

Recent news on House File 5 and a related “personhood” bill is after the jump.

Clark Kauffman has a interesting story in today’s Des Moines Register about William Gustoff, one of Governor Terry Branstad’s two recent appointees to the State Judicial Nominating commission. Apparently it is unprecedented for an Iowa governor to name an attorney to this commission. Gubernatorial appointees are typically non-lawyers, while the State Bar Association selects lawyers to serve. Kauffman noticed something else I didn’t realize about Gustoff:

Gustoff is among four lawyers representing four Iowans in a federal lawsuit against the nominating commission.

Ironically, one of the claims made by the plaintiffs in that case is that the makeup of the commission – half lawyers, half lay people – is biased against nonlawyers because they have no say in the selection of half the commission.

The lawsuit was first filed in December. In February, it was dismissed by a federal judge who said the plaintiffs failed to show a clear violation of their constitutional rights. An appeal is now pending in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gustoff said that although he is listed as the lead attorney for one of the plaintiffs, his involvement in the case was minimal at first and is almost nonexistent now.

“I’m not really that involved in it,” he said. “I haven’t taken any steps to remove myself from the case as the attorney of record. But I am not admitted to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, so I can’t file anything now, and I really have nothing to do with it at this point.”

Gustoff said he’s not a trial lawyer, and his practice is focused on estate planning and nonprofit law. As a result, he said, he will bring to the commission the perspective of an average citizen, rather than that of a typical lawyer.

Asked why, if he specializes in estate planning and nonprofits, he was hired to handle the lawsuit against the commission, Gustoff said he’s not sure. “They got me from somewhere,” he said, laughing. “I don’t know. I never asked them how they got my name.”

Gustoff works in the law firm of Whitaker Hagenow, which is run by Chris Hagenow, a Republican state representative who has sponsored legislation to abolish the Judicial Nominating Commission, and Matt Whitaker, a former Supreme Court applicant who has accused the commission of manipulating the selection of Supreme Court justices.

Neither Hagenow’s bill nor other proposals to change the judicial nominating system made it past the Iowa legislature’s “funnel” deadline last week.

Bleeding Heartland discussed the federal lawsuit against the judicial nominating commission here. The case seems quite weak. It’s telling that the attorneys running the show in this politically-motivated lawsuit selected Gustoff (a partner in a conservative law firm) as opposed to some Iowa attorney with experience in litigation or constitutional law.

Kauffman paraphrases Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht as confirming that the governor picked Gustoff “because of his conservative leanings.” Branstad’s other appointee to the judicial nominating commission is a non-laywer, Helen St. Clair of Melrose. She is presumably related to Maurice St. Clair of Melrose, who donated about $45,000 to Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign. Most of the remaining members of the judicial nominating commission are registered Democrats.

UPDATE: Nathan Tucker calls Kauffman’s article “journalistic malpractice”. Excerpts from his case are after the jump.

Governor Terry Branstad announced some important personnel decisions in the past few days, naming former State Representative Libby Jacobs to chair the Iowa Utilities Board and three new members of the Board of Regents, including Bruce Rastetter.

Follow me after the jump for more on those and other Branstad administration appointments.

UPDATE: On March 1 President Barack Obama named Branstad to co-chair the Council of Governors, “established by the National Defense Authorization Act in 2008 to strengthen further partnership between the Federal and State governments as it pertains to national security.” Branstad will serve a two-year term as co-chair.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad announced more than 200 appointments to state boards and commissions on March 2. Bleeding Heartland covered the four appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission here; all have ties to large agribusiness.

Another name that caught my eye was Eric Goranson, a lobbyist and parochial schools advocate whom Branstad named to the State Board of Education. He has been a leading critic of the Iowa Core Curriculum (see here and here). The Under the Golden Dome Blog argues that Goranson’s appointment may violate Iowa code, which states, “A voting member [of the Board of Education] shall not be engaged in professional education for a major portion of the member’s time nor shall the member derive a major portion of income from any business or activity connected with education.” Several of Goranson’s lobbying clients represent religious private schools or Christian home-schooling parents.

THIRD UPDATE: I forgot to mention Branstad’s two appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission: Helen St. Clair of Melrose and William Gustoff of Des Moines. I have been unable to find any information about Helen St. Clair, but a Maurice St. Clair of Melrose was among Branstad’s top 20 individual donors, contributing more than $45,000 to the gubernatorial campaign. I assume he is related to Helen St. Clair and will update this post if I confirm that. William Gustoff is a founding partner of the Whitaker Hagenow law firm, which includes Republican former U.S. attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow. Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley also worked at Whitaker Hagenow last year.

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.

A constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite sex advanced on January 24 in both a subcommittee of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and the full committee. House Joint Resolution 6 states, “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” Iowa Republicans have promised for months to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. This amendment goes further, barring any kind of legal union apart from marriage and therefore any legal recognition for same-sex relationships.  

After an emotionally charged subcommittee hearing with more than 200 observers present, Republicans Dwayne Alons and Chris Hagenow voted to advance the amendment, while Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell voted no. Later in the day, the full House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13 to 8 vote. Democrat Kurt Swaim joined all 12 Republicans in voting yes, while the other Democrats on the committee voted no. Click here for a list of House Judiciary Committee members.

Reading the news coverage of yesterday’s debate, I was struck by how many misleading talking points were used to justify denying rights and privileges to thousands of Iowans.  

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.  

Governor-elect Terry Branstad announced yesterday that Brenna Findley will be his administration’s legal counsel. Findley was bound to get a good job in state government, given the national and state Republican money behind her candidacy for attorney general, and the way Branstad promoted her all year long. He also appeared in one of Findley’s television commercials, which he did not do for other down-ticket Republican candidates.

I had heard rumors Findley might be put in charge of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, since her commercials in the attorney general’s race had a strong public-safety angle. On the other hand, the Iowa Senate has to confirm heads of state departments, and some might have questioned Findley’s qualifications for that kind of position.

Findley doesn’t have much experience in the practice of law, but Branstad doesn’t need state senators to confirm his staff appointees. Before running against Attorney General Tom Miller, Findley served as Representative Steve King’s chief of staff for seven years. Earlier this year, she joined a law firm run by former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow, who (like Findley) are both potential Republican candidates for higher office. Branstad’s press release announcing his choice of Findley is after the jump.

The newly elected Iowa House Republican caucus picked a leadership team last week, and incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen named committee chairs this week.

Follow me after the jump for information about who will run various House committees in the 84th General Assembly. It’s notable that Paulsen passed over veteran legislators while giving chairmanships to some representatives beginning their second or third terms.

LATE UPDATE: Democratic ranking members for the appropriations subcommittees have been added at the bottom of this post.

The good news is, an important public safety bill went to Governor Chet Culver’s desk on March 11. Senate File 2357 was one of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s legislative priorities this year. The bill prohibits Iowans from owning guns and ammunition if they have been convicted of a domestic violence crime or are subject to a protective order. Since 1995, 205 Iowans have been killed in domestic violence incidents; that figure represents nearly one-third of all murders recorded in Iowa during that period. Miller has also pointed out that firearms caused 111 of the 205 Iowa deaths in domestic abuse murders since 1995. Moreover, firearms were involved in nearly two-thirds of Iowa’s domestic violence deaths in 2007 and 2008. Records show 46 of the 205 Iowans killed in domestic abuse murders since 1995 have been bystanders. It’s easier to kill a bystander with a gun than with a knife or other weapon.

Federal law already bans those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a protective order from owning a gun. However, the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has noted,

We need additional state law so that local law enforcement officers have the legal authority help enforce the firearm ban. Without additional state law there are only two ATF agents in the entire state who can act to enforce the federal law […] Without local law enforcement involved abusers will not and are not abiding by the federal firearms ban.  

Various law enforcement entities backed SF 2357, but most Republicans in the Iowa legislature didn’t cooperate with this effort to address a major violent crime problem. While Republicans were unable to defeat the bill, their votes on the Senate and House floor showed more deference to extremist gun advocates than to the potential victims of domestic abusers.

Eleven of the 18 Iowa Senate Republicans voted against SF 2357 when the upper chamber approved it on February 25, and a twelfth Republican joined them when the Senate considered an amended version on March 11. Roll calls can be found in pdf files for the Senate Journal on those dates. Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and third-district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun were among the Republicans who voted no.

The March 10 Iowa House debate on SF 2357 exposed even more disturbing aspects of Republican “family values.” House Republicans voted unanimously to inject the same-sex marriage debate into this unrelated bill.

Then they voted unanimously to add a provision that might deter victims from seeking a protective order.

Then all but one of them voted to help domestic abusers get their guns back more quickly.

Then they unanimously supported language to give abuse victims access to self-defense courses, as if that’s the real solution to the domestic violence problem.

Then more than half the Republican caucus voted against the final bill.

The gory details can be found here; highlights are after the jump.

I am disappointed that the Democrats did not gain as many seats in the Iowa legislature as I’d hoped. With Barack Obama winning this state by 9 percent and Democrats enjoying a big voter registration advantage, we should have done better in the statehouse races. We need to analyze what sank some of our down-ticket candidates so we can do better in 2010.

None of that should obscure the much bigger problems currently facing the Republican Party of Iowa.

Six days after the fourth straight election in which Republicans have lost seats in both the Iowa House and Senate, the Republicans House caucus voted to replace Christopher Rants of Sioux City as their leader. Kraig Paulsen of Hiawatha (a suburb of Cedar Rapids) will take on the job. According to the Des Moines Register,

Rants and Paulsen have starkly different governing styles. Rants is known at the Capitol as a fighter, often using sharp language to rally for his party. For years, he has been the main go-to guy for his party, advising them on nearly every issue.

Paulsen has been described by his peers as being rather mellow. He’s also got a reputation of being able to work well with Democrats. This summer, for example, he was seen frequently working with other legislators such as Sen. Robert Hogg, a Democrat from Cedar Rapids, on flood-related issues.

With two House races yet to be decided, Republicans are likely to end up with only 44 of the 100 seats in the lower chamber. Eight years ago they had 56 seats. The delegation is not only smaller, but also more conservative than it was in the past. For instance, my own House distict 59 has traditionally been represented by moderates (Janet Metcalf, Gene Maddox, Dan Clute), but incoming representative Chris Hagenow was backed by right-wing interest groups.

Speaking of those two House seats that are still too close to call, let this be a lesson to voters about the importance of filling out the whole ballot. Democratic incumbent Wes Whitead leads by six (!) votes in House district 1, and some ballots are being challenged because an estimated 100 to 120 Woodbury County voters received absentee ballots listing candidates in the wrong state House district.

In House district 37, highly targeted Democratic incumbent Art Staed trailed Republican Renee Schulte by less than 50 votes on election night and by only 14 votes as of Friday. If Whitead’s lead holds and a recount changes the outcome of Staed’s race, House Republicans would end up with with only 43 seats for the next two legislative sessions.

Speaking of contested ballots, the votes of 50 Grinnell students who listed the address where they receive mail, rather than the address of the dorm they live in, will be counted in House district 75. As I predicted, that race turned out not to be close enough for the challenged votes to be decisive. Targeted Democratic incumbent Eric Palmer beat former state representative Danny Carroll by about 1,200 votes (54 percent to 46 percent).

About those close races: the Republicans might have picked up more seats if the Democrats had not banked so many early votes. Rants announced after being ousted as House Republican leader that “he’ll now take on a personal crusade to spark Republican voter registration drives and early voting as a way to help his party rebound.” Building an effective early-voting campaign will not happen overnight, though.

Republicans in the Iowa Senate are considering changing their leadership as well, now that their Senate caucus will be the smallest in history. Depending on the outcome of the extremely close race in Senate district 10, Republicans will hold just 18 or 19 seats out of 50.

The national economic and political climate could be very different in 2010, which may give some Republicans hope. But don’t imagine it will be easy for them to defeat Governor Chet Culver and win back a net six or seven seats in the House and the Senate. A few years ago, Republicans and Democrats had about the same number of registered voters in Iowa. Yet Culver beat Congressman Jim Nussle (who was considered a strong candidate) by about 100,000 votes in 2006. Culver goes into the next campaign with the advantages of incumbency as well as a Democratic lead in voter registration.

The Republican Party of Iowa also faces divisive battles between social conservatives and moderates. Stewart Iverson announced last week that he will not seek another term as state party chairman. Polk County Republican Chairman Ted Sporer wants the job and wants to make the party more confrontational:

“We need to fight with the Democrats. I want to fight with the Democrats every day,” he said. “I want our party leadership to join me in that.”

The current GOP leadership has led the party to the bottom, he said.

“If 2009 doesn’t look like the bottom has dropped out, I mean if this isn’t truly where you bottom out, what’s it going to look like?” he said. “We have to turn around and start fighting back.”

Sporer said the party must return to its conservative values, from fiscal to social and everywhere in between.

“We were so not conservative in the last election cycle,” he said, adding: “[Republicans] are so afraid of losing power that they pander to the middle instead of running hard and proud as who they are.”

But even before the election, moderate Iowa Republicans were planning to “fight back against the evangelicals and goofballs who have taken over the party.” Goofballs such as U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Reed and Kim Lehman, who was elected Republican national committeewoman this summer at the GOP state convention (replacing Sandy Greiner). Steve Roberts, another moderate Republican who lost his RNC slot to a social conservative, suggested before the election that Lehman should choose between leading Iowa Right to Life and serving on the RNC.

The moderates (including 2002 gubernatorial nominee Doug Gross according to Cityview) think Republicans should not take such a hard line on social issues. Former Republican lieutenant governor Joy Corning, who is pro-choice, took issue with Lehman in this letter to the Des Moines Register:

Pro-life can and does mean pro-choice to great numbers of Republicans. It means they want government to let individual citizens decide on matters best left to each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility.

If Kim Lehman, one of two Iowa representatives on the Republican National Committee, makes being anti-choice a litmus test, it only further divides the Republican Party.

We are defined by principles that have been our foundation since the time of Lincoln – limited government, strong defense, fiscal responsibility, self-determination and opportunity. We are not defined by a National Right to Life survey.

Last week’s election results strengthen the moderate Republicans’ argument, in my opinion. Lynda Waddington of Iowa Independent showed in this piece that Republican statehouse candidates who emphasized abortion as a campaign issue did not do very well.

But who will take on and defeat Sporer in a campaign to lead the state party? His belief that the GOP has been losing because it’s not conservative enough is shared by most Republicans, even if the overall electorate disagrees.

I don’t give the moderates much chance against the “goofballs” if Republican activists are doing the choosing.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that as a rule, the party out of power sees more of its members retire from the state legislature. It’s not much fun being in the minority during the legislative session. In all likelihood, Republicans will go into the 2010 cycle with more open seats to defend in the Iowa House and Senate.

I also want to link to a few conservative bloggers’ commentaries on the situation facing the Republican Party of Iowa.

At his own blog, Ted Sporer lays out his vision for a “Republican Rebirth” in Iowa. Many of his ideas are grounded in the Republican mainstream, but make no mistake: Sporer is more closely aligned with the “goofballs” than with the moderates.

After Christopher Reed went way over the top in his debate with Tom Harkin last month, Sporer defended Reed’s description of the four-term incumbent as the “Tokyo Rose of al-Qaeda.” To hear Sporer tell it, this phrase was “accurate,” and “we need more discussion of objective factual truths in politics.” Furthermore, he argued that Reed’s line of attack against Harkin could have been a winning message if only Reed had had “more money, a staff and some TV advertising.” This tells me that if Sporer does become Iowa GOP chairman, we’re in for a lot of Newt Gingrich-style rhetorical bomb-throwing in 2010.

The well-connected Krusty Konservative notes that groups of Republican moderates and conservatives have met in recent days to discuss the way forward:

While I’m glad that both the establishment crowd and conservative activists are meeting, I just wish they would sit down and meet together. If this turns out to be a battle between the two groups only one thing will come of it; defeat.

Krusty also wants social conservatives to be “more inclusive and tolerant of people and candidates who don’t comply with a strict anti-abortion litmus test.” But he had this to say to the Republicans who blame the religious right for losing elections:

It amazes me that the social conservatives are being blamed for the lack of message within the Republican Party. This couldn’t me farther from the truth. The liberal media would lead you to believe that our candidates only talk about gay marriage and abortion. […]

When you look at the message breakdown on economic/kitchen table issues it’s been the establishment candidates who have failed us. In this last presidential campaign we saw John McCain lose the kitchen table issues to Obama, but we shouldn’t have been surprised, our Republican standard barers [sic] have not been able to win the debate on economic issues vs. their Democrat challengers for more than a decade.

Commenting on my post about the problems facing Republicans nationally, Bleeding Heartland user dbrog recommended watching the latest Iowa Press program on Iowa Public Television. The video is here, and you can download the transcript at the same page on the IPTV website.

Krusty Konservative wasn’t optimistic after watching:

Interestingly enough both National Committeeman Steve Scheffler and Doug Gross discussed the future of the Republican Party in Iowa on Iowa Press this past weekend. The interview didn’t generate any real fireworks, but it also lacked any specific ideas to move our party forward. All I took out of it was to expect more of the same, which means we should prepare to lose more legislative seats in 2010 and maybe a statewide elected Republican unless we can rally around the cause of winning elections.

Blogger abregar of the Iowa Defense Alliance describes what he wants to see in a party chairman:

The Republican Party of Iowa is in crisis. As a party we have just come off another losing election cycle. There were a few areas that provided a sense of optimism, but they are few and far between. It has become obvious that the current party leadership does not know how to win. Their strategy has led us down the road to defeat yet again.  The party is fractured and in need of healing yet our leadership has not attempted to do just that. The next RPI Chair needs to be someone that understands and supports all the values and ideals that our party stands for. Essentially the next Chair should eat, sleep, and drink the party platform. The next RPI Chair must unite our crippled and fractured party. There are deep divisions in the party right now that current leadership has done little to heal.

To my mind, a GOP chair who “eats, sleeps and drinks the party platform” will be unable to heal the party’s divisions, because social conservatives have been so dominant in crafting that platform. But that’s not the most interesting part of abregar’s analysis:

I cannot deny that under normal circumstances I think that [Sporer] would excel as Chair of RPI. Ted is solid on all the issues that represent the Republican Party here in Iowa. He most definitely is outspoken and has great ideas. At this point in time, Ted may not be the right person for the job. Far too many people across the state Ted is a symbol of the Polk County political machine and they resent that. […] Other party members across the state see the influence that Polk County has and they resent it. I hate to say this, but I don’t think that Ted would bring the party together like we need.

Right now RPI needs a leader that can reach across the state to bring Republicans together. We need someone that is going to be a strong leader that will promote our issues and values. We need a strong leader that will loudly and vocally support all of our candidates, not just one or two. We need someone that is going to be solid on all Republican issues. In order to do this RPI is going to need to look outside of Polk County.

Not surprisingly, the most influential Republican moderates in this state are based in Polk County, which contains Des Moines and most of its suburbs. Polk County is also where a lot of the heavy-hitter Republican donors live (both moderate and conservative). If the state GOP takes abregar’s advice and looks outside Polk County, will unifying the party become any easier?

The bottom line is that there is no easy path forward for the Republican Party of Iowa.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that overall turnout in Iowa in 2008 was lower than it was in 2004. That is surprising, given the well-documented surge in new voter registrations.

Which people who participated in 2004 stayed home yesterday, and how did that affect the results?

Tom Harkin won all 99 counties, which is remarkable considering that John McCain beat Barack Obama in 46 or 47 of Iowa’s counties. Even in Republican areas, they’re looking for more in a U.S. senator than trash talk and smackdowns. Does anyone remember whether Chuck Grassley carried all 99 counties in 2004?

(UPDATE: The Daily Kos election scoreboard shows Christopher Reed beating Harkin in Page County in the southwest part of the state and in the four counties in the northwest corner. There may be a mistake on the Des Moines Register’s map, which shows all 99 counties in blue for the Senate race.)

The words “idiot” and “insane person” will be removed from the Iowa Constitution.

Speaking of idiots, Steve King got away with barely campaigning in the fifth district, winning by at least 20 points. Politics can be cruel, and I feel for Rob Hubler, who worked so hard for so long to give fifth district residents a credible candidate.

Nationwide, many Democratic challengers in districts like IA-05 fell far short. Nancy Boyda, a surprise winner from 2006 in KS-02, was a surprise loser last night. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invested millions of dollars in other similarly Republican districts like MN-06 and AZ-03, and our challengers lost those too.

After beating Kim Schmett by 57 percent to 42 percent (about double his margin of victory in 2006), third district Congressman Leonard Boswell immediately vowed to run for re-election in 2010. Can’t some Democratic heavy-hitters who are on good terms with Boswell encourage him to retire? Barring that, is there anyone willing to start fundraising for a 2010 primary challenge who would have some establishment support?

We may have to run against Tom Latham in a redrawn third district in 2012, and it would be helpful to have a new Democratic incumbent in place before that happens.

Bruce Braley was the incumbent re-elected by the largest margin, 64 percent to 36 percent. I agree with John Deeth that Republican moderates are going to challenge Dave Hartsuch in his 2010 state senate primary.

Dave Loebsack won big in the second district, by 57 percent to 39 percent. The hill in this D+7 district is just too steep for a Republican candidate to climb. Mariannette Miller-Meeks would be better off seeking a different political office in the future, although the Iowa GOP may encourage her to run for Congress again in 2010. Loebsack won’t have the Barack Obama turnout machine cranking in Johnson and Linn counties two years from now.

Iowa Democrats are looking at small net gains in the House and Senate. Dawn Pettengill got away with switching to the GOP after the Iowa Democratic Party worked hard to elect her. A couple of races may have a different result once the absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Deeth has more details.

Jerry Sullivan has not ruled out requesting a recount in House district 59, although it seems unlikely to me that there are enough provisional and absentee ballots outstanding for him to reverse Chris Hagenow’s 141-vote lead (out of more than 16,000 votes cast).

UPDATE: Johnson County voters narrowly approved a controversial bond measure. The proposal was designed to generate

$20 million in a 20-year period to conserve open space.

By collecting taxes for two decades, the Johnson County Conservation Board will have the funds to buy and preserve remnant areas of land scattered throughout the county from willing sellers.

Which candidates and interest groups did you hear from on the eve of the election?

On Monday afternoon at 1:40 pm I got a robocall urging me to “get the facts” before voting. The “facts” are that Jerry Sullivan (Democratic candidate in House district 59) supported the Project Destiny proposal that Polk County voters resoundingly rejected in a July 2007 referendum.

I think the robocall erroneously claimed that Project Destiny would have raised my property taxes, when in fact it would have reduced property taxes while increasing the local sales tax.

The robocall went on to say that Sullivan is financially backed by groups wanting to pass some kind of legislation I couldn’t hear, because my son was making a lot of noise in the background. It may have had something to do with unions or collective bargaining, because when I called Sullivan’s campaign manager to tell him about the call, he said Republicans were lit-dropping a piece yesterday saying Jerry Sullivan will force you to join a union.

The robocall concluded by saying that the fact is we can’t afford Jerry Sullivan, and that the call was “proudly paid for by Iowans for Tax Relief PAC, working to protect family budgets.” I stayed on the line with my pen in hand, waiting to write down the phone number, but the robocall did not give a phone number. I thought that was required by law. The robocall did not mention Chris Hagenow, the Republican candidate in House district 59.

Sullivan’s campaign had volunteers out in the most Republican part of the district yesterday (the wealthy Clive 4 precinct). They were dropping positive campaign literature, along with a piece about the nine mayors in the Des Moines metro area who have endorsed Sullivan, including Clive Mayor Les Aasheim.

I’m happy to report that the GOTV machine in Iowa is engaged on behalf of Democrats at all levels. I’ve received several robocalls from Democrats in recent days like Governor Chet Culver and Senator Tom Harkin, inviting me to GOTV rallies.

Also, on Sunday I received a robocall from the Iowa Democratic Party, authorized by the Obama campaign for change, that mentioned voting for the “Democratic ticket” (not just Obama) twice. At the end it asked me to hold before giving me the name and address of my polling place. The same day, a volunteer left a door-hanger at our house, reminding us of the date of the election, the hours polls will be open, the phone number for Obama’s toll-free early-voting hotline, our precinct number, the name and address of our polling location, and all the names on “your Democratic ticket” (in our case Obama, Harkin, Congressman Leonard Boswell, Jerry Sullivan, plus three Democrats seeking Polk County offices).

Who has contacted you lately about the election, and what did they say?

I live in Iowa House district 59, which includes Windsor Heights, Clive and parts of West Des Moines. Republicans have held this seat since before I was born, but I am convinced that Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan has a strong chance to flip this district for the Democrats.

Judging from two calls I received in the past 48 hours, some Republicans are worried about that possibility too.

On Sunday evening I got a robocall from “Survey 2000” claiming to have a brief 30-second survey for me to answer. The first question was whether I planned to vote in the June 3 Democratic primary. The second was whether I planned to vote for Jerry Sullivan or Mark Matel in the primary. Then the push-polling started.

I jotted down what I could with pencil and paper, but the robocall voice went fast, so I don’t have anything close to the verbatim wording of the call.

One question asked whether a candidate’s position on a woman’s right to choose was important, and followed up with some language suggesting that Jerry Sullivan does not support that right.

The next question asked whether I thought elected officials should keep our taxes low, and followed up by saying that Windsor Heights property taxes were very high while Sullivan was mayor.

Finally, there was a question and follow-up information relating to Sullivan’s support for last summer’s Project Destiny referendum, which failed by a huge margin.

This call had all the telltale marks of a push-poll. No demographic information was collected, so the results could not be analyzed in any useful way by a campaign or a public polling firm. Only negative information about one candidate was pushed. In contrast, a legitimate message-testing poll, such as the one commissioned by Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign in January, will test positive and negative messages about one or more candidates.

I jotted down the phone number given at the end of the call. It went by fast, but I think I wrote it down correctly: 703-263-2511. I tried to call that number and got only busy signals.

On Monday at about 4:15 pm, I got a different robocall. This was not a fake poll, but it was otherwise similar to the call I received Sunday night.

This time a woman’s voice said she was calling from “Survey 2008” (which was pronounced “Survey two zero zero eight”) with important information about the primary coming up on June 3.

First, she said that Windsor Heights property taxes went from one of the lowest to the second-highest in the Des Moines metro area while Jerry Sullivan was mayor.

Then, she said that Sullivan worked to pass Project Destiny, which was supported by wealthy business interests.

Then, she said Sullivan was believed to support ending a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The phone number given at the end of this call was 703-263-1908, which probably is a different phone line at the same office that produced the call I got Sunday evening.

First things first: I contacted Sullivan’s campaign manager and confirmed that the candidate is pro-choice. There is no basis for these calls suggesting that he would seek to end a woman’s right to choose. I suspect that they tried that line because Sullivan is Catholic and has a Catholic-sounding name, and they figured this argument would hurt him with Democratic primary voters.

A neighbor called me yesterday to report getting a nasty robocall about Sullivan. When we compared notes, it was obviously the same call. She assumed that Sullivan’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Mark Matel, was behind the call, but my hunch is that these calls were not arranged by any of the rival candidates for this seat.

I doubt that either Matel or Republican Susan Murphy have the resources to fund this kind of operation, even if they wanted to. I assume that Chris Hagenow, the favorite to win the Republican nomination, is focused on winning his primary race, although he may have raised enough money to fund calls like these.

The language on taxes used in both calls suggests to me that a Republican interest group is behind them. Iowans for Tax Relief has endorsed Hagenow, so that group might be a prime suspect. I am sure they would rather not see the relatively inexperienced Hagenow run against someone with Sullivan’s background in business and public service.

It’s also possible that the Iowa Republican Party decided to spend money on roughing up Sullivan in the Democratic primary. Presumably the seat would be easier for Republicans to hold if Sullivan loses the primary, or if they can damage his reputation among the loyal Democratic voters who show up for primaries.

The phone numbers given at the end of the calls should point toward the firm that produced them, but that would not necessarily reveal what candidate or entity paid for the calls.

If you receive calls pushing negative information on any candidate this year, please take as detailed notes as you can. That’s easier when there is a live caller, because you can ask him or her to repeat the questions. Stay on the line until the end of the call and write down the phone number, which they are legally required to give. Then contact the campaign of the candidate being attacked in the call, so they know right away what is going on.

I also encourage Bleeding Heartland users to put up a diary at this blog if you receive any push-poll or obnoxious robocalls this year.