Yet again, “VEISHEA” celebrations in Ames have degenerated into a riot. This time a student was injured badly enough to be life-flighted from the scene, on top of the substantial property damage we’ve seen too often. VEISHEA is supposed to be a celebration of Iowa State University pride, but I think campus leaders need to accept that they can’t stop a small percentage of drunken idiots from ruining the festival for everyone. Administrators have given students plenty of chances to prove they can get VEISHEA right.

Although it may seem unfair to punish everyone for the behavior of a small group, we’re not talking about a handful of troublemakers. Hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were involved in last night’s riot. This isn’t the first, second or even third riot during VEISHEA. The recurring problem makes the whole university look bad. Most colleges and universities get by without a weeklong party every spring. It’s time for Iowa State to join them.

Comments from Ames police Commander Geoff Huff and ISU President Steven Leath are after the jump.

UPDATE: Leath announced on April 9 that the rest of this year’s planned VEISHEA events will be cancelled. A task force will determine what happens in future years.

Leath said VEISHEA will be completely refocused on what it used to be or it will be eliminated.

“The problems revolving around alcohol, house parties — these issues have to go away,” said Leath.

I hope the task force will also review acts of violence that don’t generate media coverage or attention. For instance, I would like to know whether sexual assaults on campus typically increase during VEISHEA week.

A few days before he will formally step down as the Republican Party of Iowa’s leader, A.J. Spiker advocated legalizing medical marijuana in a guest editorial for the Sunday Des Moines Register. Excerpts from Spiker’s column are after the jump. Framing the case for medical cannabis in terms of personal freedom, Spiker rebuked Republicans who have been unwilling to acknowledge strong arguments for allowing doctors to prescribe the drug. While he didn’t name names, his points came across as a rebuttal to Governor Terry Branstad, who would rather drag his feet on this issue.

Spiker and Branstad have clashed repeatedly, and it’s an open secret that the governor hasn’t been happy with the Iowa GOP’s priorities or fundraising since Spiker took over from Matt Strawn in early 2012. It’s shrewd for Spiker to stake a claim for medical marijuana, a position that is increasingly popular, especially with younger voters. Now his last impression as state party chair will be as a forward-thinking leader, rather than the guy who sometimes seemed to care more about Ron Paul’s Liberty movement than about electing Republicans.  

Speaking of medical marijuana, the issue was the focus of last Friday’s edition of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Steve Lukan, director of the governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy, appeared along with West Des Moines Mayor Steve Gaer and State Senator Joe Bolkcom, leading advocates for legalizing medical cannabis using the New Mexico model. The video and transcript are available here. I was disappointed to see Lukan basically repeat the same talking points throughout the program, without acknowledging that many legal drugs can also be abused and may have devastating side effects for patients. Branstad didn’t search for anyone with expertise in drug policy before offering the state’s top job in this area to Lukan.

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

Ned Chiodo’s challenge to Tony Bisignano’s eligibility to run for Iowa Senate district 17 has brought new attention to some legal confusion over which crimes can cause Iowans to lose their voting rights. The Iowa Constitution does not specify which “infamous crimes” should disqualify citizens from voting or holding public office. Chiodo’s attorney cites case law from the Iowa Supreme Court suggesting that aggravated misdemeanors as well as felonies can be considered “infamous crimes.” Yet a law passed in 1994 defined “infamous crimes” as state or federal felonies.

State Representative Mary Wolfe, an Iowa House Democrat who is also a criminal defense attorney, just reposted a piece she wrote in 2012, explaining why aggravated misdemeanor convictions do not disqualify voters. (I recommend clicking through to read her whole analysis.) Wolfe notes with dismay the “complete and total disconnect between Iowa’s Governor and Secretary of State on such a straightforward, yes or no issue.” Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s website correctly indicates that convicted felons whose rights have not been restored may not register to vote. However, Governor Terry Branstad’s website states that “infamous crimes” may include aggravated misdemeanors and any crime that “may be punishable” by more than one year in prison. That could include a long list of offenses, including the second Operating While Intoxicated charge to which Bisignano pled guilty earlier this year.

At this writing, Branstad’s website still contains that misinformation about some aggravated misdemeanors leading to the loss of voting rights, even though Branstad himself signed the 1994 law defining “infamous crimes” as felonies. Speaking to reporters a few weeks ago in defense of his policy permanently disenfranchising all but a handful of ex-felons, the governor equated “infamous crimes” with felonies.

Because Chiodo plans to take his case to court, a Polk County District judge (and perhaps eventually the full Iowa Supreme Court) will settle any questions over whether Iowa’s 1994 law supersedes previous court rulings on this issue.  

Attorney General Tom Miller, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, and State Auditor Mary Mosiman decided unanimously that Tony Bisignano may run in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa Senate district 17 despite a recent drunk driving charge. Democratic rival Ned Chiodo had challenged Bisignano’s candidacy, saying a second-offense OWI is an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by a prison sentence. Therefore, “long-established case law from the Iowa Supreme Court” place this charge among the “infamous crimes” that render citizens ineligible to vote or hold office under the Iowa Constitution. You can read the full text of Chiodo’s challenge here (pdf).

Attorneys representing both sides presented their case to the three-member panel on Wednesday. Tipping his hand, Miller shared concerns expressed by Bisignano’s lawyer that thousands of Iowans could lose their voting rights if Chiodo’s challenge were upheld. In fact, Miller estimated that 35,000 to 50,000 people could become ineligible to vote under that standard.

Today Chiodo’s attorney confirmed plans to appeal in Polk County District Court. The case may eventually reach the Iowa Supreme Court, as language in the state constitution and a 1994 law are in conflict. I don’t see how the matter could be resolved before the June 3 primary, let alone before the Polk County Auditor’s office will have to print primary ballots.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Bisignano’s campaign. The winner of the Democratic primary is virtually guaranteed to succeed Jack Hatch in Iowa Senate district 17. Republicans do not even have a candidate running in this heavily Democratic area of Des Moines.

I’m disappointed that Ned Chiodo is willing to sacrifice the voting rights of thousands of people in order to advance his political career. By the same token, I would prefer not to elect a repeat drunk driver to the legislature. Whether or not Bisignano’s offense meets the legal definition of an “infamous crime,” his behavior posed a danger to himself and others. If I lived in Senate district 17 I would vote for new blood in the Democratic caucus: Nathan Blake. The official announcement of his candidacy is at the end of this post.

Most people familiar with the criminal justice system understand that a jury acquittal after less than an hour is an embarrassing loss for the prosecutor and a sign that the case should never have come to trial.

Then there’s Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Having spent major political capital (not to mention hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars) to spin simple errors into grand criminal conspiracies, he managed to claim victory yesterday when a Lee County jury declared an ineligible voter not guilty of perjury.

I’ve been meaning to put up a thread on efforts to legalize cannabis for medical use in Iowa. State Senator Joe Bolkcom has been the lead sponsor of a bill that would create “a state regulated system to provide medical cannabis to Iowans under a doctor’s care.” Senate File 2215 (full text) did not meet the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” deadline because of a lack of support from statehouse Republicans. However, more recently GOP lawmakers including Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, a nurse practitioner, have said they are open to discussions on the issue. Iowa House Republican Clel Baudler, who helped kill a similar bill last year, is dead-set against what he calls an “asinine” idea.

The Iowa Medical Marijuana website includes much more background on efforts to legalize the medical use of cannabis. The front page of that site includes links to recent news coverage and videos from an Iowa Senate hearing on March 5. CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta changed his mind on the medical uses of marijuana while working on a documentary last year.

After the jump I’ve enclosed a statement from Bolkcom explaining the key points of SF 2215, highlights from the Des Moines Register’s latest polling on the issue, and comments from Governor Terry Branstad, West Des Moines Mayor Steve Gaer, and Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.

Any relevant thoughts or predictions are welcome in this thread. I expect advocates will have to work for at least a few more years before Iowa joins the 20 states and Washington, DC where medical marijuana is already legal.  

If any Iowa Democrat deserves a primary challenge, it’s three-term State Senator Joe Seng. Although the Davenport-based veterinarian represents one of the Democrats’ safest urban districts, Seng is anti-choice and supported Republican calls for a vote against marriage equality in 2010. As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he has helped pass several bills that are good for industrial agriculture but bad for the environment, especially clean water. In addition, Seng himself challenged three-term U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack in the IA-02 Democratic primary two years ago, so he couldn’t claim the moral high ground against a primary challenger for his state Senate seat.

I was excited to see yesterday that another Democratic candidate, Mark Riley, had filed papers to run in Senate district 45. When I realized Riley was Seng’s Republican opponent in 2010 and ran an independent campaign against Iowa House Democrat Cindy Winckler in 2012, I became disappointed. Was he just a fake like the “Democrat” who ran against State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad in 2010?

I sought comment from Riley about why he was running as a Democrat in Iowa Senate district 45, having campaigned as a Republican in the same district a few years ago. I’ve posted his response after the jump. You be the judge. Riley would have my serious consideration if I lived on the west side of Davenport.  

Yet another good idea has fallen victim to the U.S. Senate’s rules requiring a super-majority to advance legislation. Although 44 Democratic senators and eleven Republicans supported a bill that would have taken sexual assault cases outside the military chain of command, backers fell five votes short of the 60 needed to pass a cloture motion yesterday. Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley both voted for cloture (roll call) on the bill sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pentagon leaders and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Claire McCaskill lobbied against the measure. A weaker sexual assault prevention bill proposed by McCaskill advanced after senators rejected cloture on Gillibrand’s bill.

After the jump I’ve posted the key arguments for both sides in the debate, as well as comments from Grassley and Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01). In the floor statement I’ve enclosed below, Grassley urged colleagues, “We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn’t reported because of a perception that justice won’t be done.” Braley has long supported reforms along the lines of Gillibrand’s bill, and yesterday he promised to keep pushing on the issue, saying opponents are “on the wrong side of history.” Braley is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Harkin will vacate at the end of this year.

P.S. – Of the Republican senators considered most likely to run for president in 2016, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for cloture on Gillibrand’s bill. Marco Rubio voted against it.  

Since Democrats changed U.S. Senate rules in November to remove the 60-vote threshold for cloture motions on most presidential nominees, senators have confirmed dozens of President Barack Obama’s appointees as federal judges, ambassadors, and to various executive branch positions. In fact, fifteen presidential nominees sailed through the process during the past month alone.

Yesterday, for the first time under new Senate rules, Democrats could not muster even a simple majority of votes in favor of cloture on a presidential nominee. Alexander Bolton and Ramsey Cox reported on the controversy that torpedoed Debo Adegbile’s nomintaion to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Critics said Adegbile was unfit for the job because as director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he had supported efforts commute the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, “who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.”

Seven Democrats joined all the Republicans present to defeat the cloture motion on Adegbile’s nomination by 52 votes to 47 (roll call). The Iowans split along party lines, with Senator Tom Harkin supporting cloture on Adegbile’s nomination and Senator Chuck Grassley voting against the motion. Harkin sharply criticized his colleagues, saying Adegbile would have been confirmed if he were white.

Bolton and Cox saw yesterday’s vote as “a stinging defeat for Obama.” I see it as a more stinging defeat to basic concepts underlying the American justice system: everyone has a right to a defense, and defense attorneys should not be held accountable for their clients’ conduct. Going back to the colonial period, this country has a tradition of attorneys providing a vigorous defense at trial to even odious criminals. President John Adams remained proud of his work defending the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre of 1770 and opposing the death penalty for them, even though they had shot and killed patriots.

UPDATE: Added comments from Harkin after the jump.

There’s never a good way or a good time to lose a loved one, but few people experience loss as devastating as what State Representative Mary Wolfe’s family has gone through during the last week. Two of her younger sisters, Sarah and Susan Wolfe, were murdered on February 6 in their home near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Authorities are calling the case a homicide but have made no arrests yet.

Wolfe’s parents, the surviving six Wolfe siblings, and many friends and loved ones laid their sisters to rest today in their home town. The Clinton Herald published a beautiful feature about Sarah’s and Suzy’s work and passions in life. Sarah was a psychiatrist, and Susan was an educator.

Carol Staudacher wrote in the book A Time To Grieve, “The death of a loved one is, for most of us, the most profound emotional experience we will ever have to endure.” Although I have experienced bereavements, I cannot imagine the added pain of losing family in such an untimely and violent way. I am sending healing thoughts to Mary Wolfe and hope that her friends and colleagues will help and support her during the difficult weeks and months to come. Staudacher also writes, “The best tribute you can make to a loved one is the life you live after the death.” For those who want to make a tangible expression of their grief, the Wolfe family has asked that memorial donations be made to either the Clinton YWCA Crisis Center or the L’Arche Community, also located in Clinton.

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

Ben Adler published a highly entertaining article a few days ago about former presidential candidates Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee. Can’t say I was surprised to learn they are all making big money off spam e-mails selling dubious products to former political supporters.

Questions persist over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. I doubt the disgraced former Port Authority official has any real dirt on Christie. If he gets the immunity from criminal prosecution he’s seeking, I expect his so-called “evidence” about the governor will turn out to be a whole lot of nothing. Furthermore, if Christie runs for president in 2016, I believe his signing New Jersey’s version of the DREAM Act will be more of a liability in the GOP primaries than anything related to the bridge scandal. Nevertheless, the controversy does appear to have Christie rattled.

Who’s old enough to remember Dinesh D’Souza? He made a name for himself during the 1980s as a conservative provocateur on the Dartmouth campus. He later became a popular paid speaker and occasional talking head. (Unofficial nickname: Distort D’Newsa.) In late January, he was indicted for allegedly breaking federal campaign finance laws. Naturally, D’Souza claims his prosecution may be “a kind of payback” for his documentary film “which links the supposedly anti-colonialist views of [President Barack] Obama’s father to the policies of the Obama presidency.”

Closer to home, misconduct involving federal grants has ended the careers of two former Iowa State University faculty. Palaniappa Molian was a tenured professor in the highly-regarded College of Engineering when he spent federal grant funds on personal expenses unrelated to his research. Last week he pled guilty to felony charges of making false statements; he will be sentenced in April and could face up to five years in prison. It’s not clear yet whether criminal charges will be filed in a much worse case of fraud involving former ISU Assistant Professor Dong-Pyou Han, who had to resign in December after falsifying research on a vaccine for AIDS. James Bradac of the National Institutes of Health told the Des Moines Register that Han’s test results were “the worst case of research fraud he’d seen in his 24 years at the federal agency.”

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced yesterday that nine more Iowans are being charged with “voter fraud.” As you can see from the statement I’ve posted below, eight Waterloo residents face election misconduct charges (a Class D felony) because they registered to vote and cast ballots in the 2012 general election, even though they are felons whose voting rights had not been restored. One Lee County resident who is also an ex-felon is charged with registering to vote and casting a ballot in a 2013 local election.

By my count, Schultz’s obsessive hunt for voter fraud has now yielded criminal charges in 25 cases, representing less than a thousandth of one percent of ballots cast in Iowa’s recent local, state, and federal elections. Most of the cases involve felons whose rights had not been restored, though not all of the accused cast ballots–some had merely registered to vote. No proof has emerged that any of these people knew they were committing a crime. They may have assumed that they had a right to vote, because tens of thousands of Iowa ex-felons had their voting rights restored during Governor Chet Culver’s tenure. They may have assumed they were able to vote once offered a registration form.

Most important, none of these cases could have been averted if Schultz had accomplished his goal of forcing Iowans to show a photo ID when voting on election day. It’s likely that many of these improperly registered voters filled out a form after renewing a driver’s license. Schultz’s full-time criminal investigator has not found anyone guilty of impersonating another voter on election day, which is the only kind of fraud that a photo ID law could prevent.

The new defendants will probably be effective poster children for Schultz’s Congressional campaign, though. Republicans love the fantasy that making it more difficult for thousands of people to vote will somehow protect “election integrity” in Iowa.  

Happy new year to the Bleeding Heartland community. Here’s an open thread. I’m among the minority of Iowans not watching the Outback Bowl today, but for what it’s worth, I do hope the Hawkeyes beat Louisiana State. LSU jumped out to an early lead.

Several new laws take effect in Iowa today, notably the alternative to expanding Medicaid, just approved by the federal government in mid-December. Under the plan, federal funds will cover Medicaid for Iowans earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level and private health insurance for Iowans with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. In theory, the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan is supposed to cover between 100,000 and 150,000 people, roughly half of our state’s uninsured population. Problems with the federal health insurance exchange website may leave a lot of people with a gap in coverage, though. The Iowa Department of Human Services has advised roughly 16,000 Iowans who applied for coverage through Healthcare.gov and may be eligible for Medicaid to apply again to the state agency. If they apply by January 31, they can get coverage retroactive to today.

Teen drivers in Iowa face new restrictions under Senate File 115, which passed both chambers with large bipartisan majorities last year. After completing driver’s ed and having an instruction permit for six months, teenagers will have an intermediate license for 12 months (extended from six months under the previous statute). Also, the teen driver’s parents have the option to limit the driver to having no more than one unrelated minor passenger in the vehicle. Rod Boshart explained more details about the new law, intended to reduce the risk of traffic accidents involving young drivers.

Boshart also reports, “Thousands of commercial property owners in Iowa face a Jan. 15 deadline to apply in their counties for a new tax credit established” in the compromise property tax bill approved at the end of last year’s legislative session with strong bipartisan support.

As of today, it is legal in the state of Colorado to sell marijuana to people over age 21 at certain licensed stores. Drivers with Colorado license plates were already among the groups more likely to be pulled over by Iowa State Patrol. I would guess that profiling will increase.

In some parts of the country, black-eyed peas are considered a lucky food to eat on New Year’s Day. I’m not a fan of “hoppin’ John,” the most traditional preparation, but I’ve posted the recipe for my favorite black-eyed peas dish after the jump.  

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz confirmed on Tuesday that he is seriously considering running for the open seat in Iowa’s third Congressional district. He’ll make up his mind during the next few weeks.

The more I think about the potential risks and benefits for Schultz, the more I think he will go for it.  

The Iowa Transportation Commission unanimously approved new rules yesterday regarding local use of cameras to enforce traffic laws on speeding and running red lights. You can read the rules proposed by the Iowa Department of Transportation here (pdf). A brief summary is after the jump.

Assuming the Iowa legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee allows the regulations to take effect, city or county governments will have to do more to gain approval from the Iowa DOT for installing or maintaining traffic cameras on roads. Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino assured commissioners that the department will not ban traffic cameras, but officials will need to see evidence that cameras are being used for safety reasons and not primarily as a way to collect revenue. Dar Danielson and Mike Wiser both covered the transportation commission hearing.

The Iowa DOT pursued new rulemaking on this issue after bills that would have banned local governments from using traffic cameras for law enforcement stalled during the 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether cameras are justified to enforce speeding laws. Regardless of your personal feelings, it’s striking as another example of Governor Terry Branstad’s administration and Republican lawmakers moving away from “local control” and embracing more state constraints on city and county government actions. Some local law enforcement agencies are not happy about the new rules on cameras.

Former State Senator Kent Sorenson’s political career is over, but his legal problems may be deepening. Robert Wenzel reported today at the Economic Policy Journal blog that two sources have confirmed “the FBI was at Sorenson’s house for 7 hours” one day last week. “They took Sorenson’s computers and the school-related computers of Sorenson’s children. Notebooks and diaries were also taken.”

In order to evade Iowa Senate ethics rules, Sorenson is alleged to have received payments from third parties for work promoting presidential candidates Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. (See volume one and volume two of the lengthy report by special investigator Mark Weinhardt.) Some of those payments may have violated federal campaign finance laws. Wenzel discussed some possible national political reverberations from the FBI investigation. Assuming his sources are correct, I suspect this case will be a powerful deterrent to any Iowa lawmaker tempted to seek money for a future political endorsement.

Hat tip to Democratic State Senator Steve Sodders.

UPDATE: Sorenson’s attorney said the search happened on November 20 and added,

“We were not notified that he was the target of any investigation,” attorney Theodore Sporer told the [Des Moines] Register. “They took computers and things that would be used to verify or validate communications with presidential entities.”

“It wasn’t a ‘raid,’” Sporer told the Register. “They executed a search warrant that, frankly, we anticipated was coming.”

SECOND UPDATE: Enjoyed the Iowa .Gif-t Shop’s take on this story.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced yesterday that her office and “the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) have jointly secured a $1 million civil settlement against two out-of-state organizations for violations of the California Political Reform Act.” In addition, a political group registered in Iowa called the “California Future Fund for Free Markets” is supposed to to pay a $4.08-million penalty to the state of California. The 501(c)4 group American Future Fund, run by longtime Iowa Republican operative Nick Ryan, was the sole source of funding for the now-defunct California Future Fund for Free Markets.

Follow me after the jump for details on the scheme to evade California’s campaign finance disclosure rules last year.

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

I’ve been catching up on news related to the Iowa Supreme Court. On October 9 the seven justices heard oral arguments in two cases at the Fort Dodge Middle School auditorium. One of those cases was Iowa Farm Bureau, et al. v. Environmental Protection Commission, et al. Interest groups representing major water polluting industries in Iowa are seeking to overturn one of the most significant water quality protection rules this state has adopted during my lifetime. In March 2012, a Polk County District Court judge declared the legal challenge to the rule “without merit.” The Farm Bureau quickly signaled its intent to appeal, claiming the case was about “good government” rather than water quality.

The Iowa Supreme Court will likely announce a decision in this case sometime early next year. Ryan Koopmans noted recently at the On Brief blog that the justices have cleared what used to be a major backlog and are running an efficient operation.

On average, the Court issues a decision 112 days after final submission (which is usually triggered by oral argument).  But even that figure understates the Court’s efficiency.   There is a small subset of cases that, because of their complexity or other unusual factors, skew the average, which means that the median might give a better picture of the Court’s timeliness.  That’s 87 days between final submission and decision, which is relatively fast.

The Court is even faster when the situation calls for it.  In February, the Court issued a decision in In re Whalen-a case about a burial location- just 29 days after the scheduled oral argument.  And the  Court has made it a priority to respond quickly to certified questions from federal district courts.

Incidentally, last week’s session in Fort Dodge is part of the Iowa Supreme Court’s relatively new commitment to hear cases outside its chambers in Des Moines periodically. The effort was one response to the 2010 retention elections, the first ever in which voters chose not to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices. University of Iowa College of Law professor Todd Pettys cited those hearings around the state as one among many reasons that the 2012 vote to retain Justice David Wiggins turned out differently from the elections two years earlier. You can download Pettys’ paper for the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process here. While it’s probably healthy for the justices to work in other cities from time to time, I think the other factors Pettys discusses were far more important in 2012 than the court’s statewide tour.

At the end of Pettys’ paper, he discusses the future for the Varnum v Brien ruling, which cleared the way for same-sex marriages in Iowa in 2009. Commenting on a somewhat surprising “special concurrence” by Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman in a different case related to marriage equality, Pettys suggests that perhaps “the Iowa Supreme Court is no longer of one mind about whether the Varnum Court was right to hold that the Iowa Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry.”

The latest episode to divide Iowa Republicans is a warning from Republican Party of Iowa officials in response to planned traffic safety checkpoints in Polk County. After the jump I’ve posted more details on that story.

Having grown up during the 1980s, when “card-carrying member of the ACLU” was a term of abuse Republicans used against liberals, I’m still floored whenever Republicans actually care about potential encroachment on civil liberties by law enforcement officials.

That’s far from the most mind-blowing political reality of our day, though. Just for fun, at the end of this post I put up a non-scientific poll for any Bleeding Heartland readers, but especially those “of a certain age.” Think back 20 to 25 years and ask yourself, what reality of 2013 would be most shocking?

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Governor Terry Branstad praised Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix today for asking Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson to resign yesterday.

“I’ve tried to be very careful and that’s why I was pleased that Bill Dix was the one that asked for his resignation and that he made the decision to resign,” Branstad said. “I think it was handled in the appropriate way and I want to give the Republican leader in the senate credit for making the ask for the resignation in light of the report that was done.”

According to O.Kay Henderson’s report for Radio Iowa, Branstad never mentioned Sorenson by name today, referring to him as “he” or “the member.” In early 2010, Sorenson vowed never to vote for Branstad. Sorenson’s home base in Warren County was one of the strongest performers for Bob Vander Plaats in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary.

Within five days, Branstad must set a date for the special election in Iowa Senate district 13. Whether Republicans retain the seat will not affect control of the Iowa Senate, where Democrats now have a 26 to 24 majority. Whoever wins the special will be up for re-election in 2014. I consider the GOP favored to hold Senate district 13. Theoretically, a Democratic candidate would have been better positioned to defeat Sorenson than someone else, but Sorenson’s presence on the Iowa political scene was so toxic that we’re all better off with him gone.

Sorenson’s resignation does not preclude possible criminal prosecution. Polk County Attorney John Sarcone’s office will review the report special investigator Mark Weinhardt filed yesterday with the Iowa Senate. Sorenson still claims he’s done nothing wrong.

Talk radio host Steve Deace, who did more than anyone else to promote Sorenson’s political career, finally commented on this mess. I’ve enclosed excerpts from his post after the jump.

UPDATE: Added a few comments from Sorenson’s Senate Republican colleagues after the jump.

Weinhardt’s report implicates David Polyansky, then a consultant for Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign, in arranging the payments for Sorenson. Polyansky is now a consultant for State Senator Joni Ernst’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2014.

According to Kevin Hall of The Iowa Republican blog, Wes Enos has resigned from the Iowa Senate GOP caucus staff. Enos was a senior official in Bachmann’s campaign and publicly defended Sorenson against allegations that he had been paid to switch his support to Ron Paul. UPDATE: On October 4, Enos resigned as a member of the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee.

Enos said Friday he had defended Sorenson previously because he believed the Milo Republican hadn’t done anything wrong. “The report was pretty damning and that is why I felt this was necessary….Realistically, now that we have seen the report it is best if I just kind step aside.”

Allegations that State Senator Kent Sorenson sought and received payment for endorsing presidential candidate Ron Paul are now the subject of a complaint with the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee. You can read the full text of Peter Waldron’s latest complaint at The Iowa Republican blog. Earlier this year, the former consultant for Michele Bachmann’s 2012 presidential campaign filed complaints with the Federal Elections Commission and the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, focused on alleged payments Sorenson received for his work on Bachmann’s campaign. Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady appointed a special investigator in May to look into those claims.

Since Sorenson appears determined to fight these charges rather than leave the political stage quietly, this saga could drag on for some time. Senate Ethics Committee Chair Wally Horn told Rod Boshart yesterday that committee members would meet soon “to discuss how to proceed.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. House Ethics Committee voted last week to continue its investigation of the Bachmann presidential campaign, Kevin Diaz reported for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on September 11. Alleged payments to Sorenson feature prominently in that investigation. According to Diaz, the Office of Congressional Ethics board has recommended that Sorenson be subpoenaed, because he did not cooperate with investigators.

Sorenson may need to find a new attorney at some point. Former Polk County Republican Party chair Ted Sporer has been representing him so far. Multiple Bleeding Heartland readers have brought to my attention an August 16 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Douglas Staskal. In that ruling, Judge Staskal found that “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sporer “fabricated evidence” and “lied under oath” to help a client who was violating the terms of a divorce decree. I’ve posted six pages from the 25-page decision after the jump. If Judge Staskal’s findings become the subject of a formal complaint with the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission, Sporer might eventually be disbarred.

UPDATE: On September 18, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its latest report on most corrupt members of Congress. Bachmann made the list, in part because of activities allegedly linked to Sorenson’s work for her campaign.

Despite growing calls for him to resign, Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson signaled yesterday that he will fight a new ethics complaint based on alleged payments from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs reported that Peter Waldron plans to file a second complaint with the Iowa Senate, claiming that Sorenson worked with Paul campaign officials “to solicit and conceal compensation” for himself and others. Waldron is a political consultant who worked for Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign. Earlier this year, he filed complaints against Sorenson with the Federal Election Commission as well as with the Iowa Senate.

Documents and audio recordings published by The Iowa Republican blog indicate that intermediaries negotiated with Paul campaign officials on Sorenson’s behalf, and that Sorenson later received a big check from a Paul campaign manager. But Sorenson’s attorney Ted Sporer told the Des Moines Register that the charges are “gibberish.”

Sporer confirmed [Dimitri] Kesari, against Sorenson’s wishes, surreptitiously handed Sorenson’s wife a check drawn on a retail business’s bank account. But the check is still in Sorenson’s possession, he said.

“It has never been cashed,” Sporer said. “Obviously we can show it’s never been cashed. And an uncashed check is simply an autograph.”

Three weeks ago, Sporer told a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter, “There was no money that changed hands. There was no direct or indirect payment from the Ron Paul campaign.”

The Iowa Senate Ethics Committee won’t be able to punt this time, but it may take months to investigate the new charges. Meanwhile, I haven’t heard of anyone planning to challenge Sorenson in the GOP primary to represent Iowa Senate district 13. If I were a Republican in Warren or Madison County, I’d have started looking for a more viable candidate months ago.

Catching up on news from last week, the Iowa Supreme Court handed down three important decisions related to juvenile sentencing on August 16. I finally had a chance to read through the rulings, which do not guarantee early release for any prisoner but could allow hundreds of Iowans to have their sentences reviewed, if they were convicted for crimes committed as minors.

Follow me after the jump for background and key points from the three rulings. Unfortunately, Governor Terry Branstad still seems to be missing the point of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that set all of these cases in motion.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread. Last night I watched a fascinating CNN program about John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. I had no idea that Hinckley had been stalking Jimmy Carter during the fall of 1980. Twice he got within a few feet of the president at campaign events.

I also taped the CNN “Our Nixon” documentary first aired earlier this month, based on home movies shot by Nixon’s aides. Looking forward to watching that soon.

Rob Christensen published an interesting essay about conservatism in the south: “Few states took the idea of minimalist government as far as North Carolina. All of the 1800s was a case study of the proposition that North Carolina works best with bare-bones government.”

Speaking of small-government conservatives, here’s an oldie but goodie by Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett on Reagan’s forgotten record of raising taxes as California governor and president.

Moving to more recent history, I strongly disagree with what Patty Judge told the New York Times about Hillary Clinton needing a strong ground game if she comes back to Iowa. If Clinton runs for president, she will win the Iowa caucuses and the Democratic nomination without any question, whether or not she spends time on retail politics here. There won’t be a repeat of 2007-2008, because she will have only token opposition during the primaries.

A Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter today in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The verdict doesn’t surprise me. No one witnessed the whole encounter that led Zimmerman to shoot an unarmed teenager. Although I did not watch the trial, I gather from commentaries and coverage at Talk Left and elsewhere that the defense turned several of the prosecution witnesses and produced their own witnesses supporting parts of Zimmerman’s story. They didn’t need to prove the self-defense narrative–only create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

That said, I doubt any jury would have acquitted an African-American man of shooting an unarmed white teenager under the same circumstances.

Roberto Martinez, a former U.S. attorney in Florida’s Southern District, made the case for a manslaughter conviction in the Miami Herald. I recommend reading the whole piece, but I’ve posted an excerpt after the jump. Even those who believe the jury reached the right verdict from a narrow legal perspective should acknowledge that Zimmerman’s stupid and reckless behavior caused the death of an innocent child. This verdict does not vindicate the actions of vigilante wannabe cops.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised? State Senator Kent Sorenson (contender for creepiest Iowa lawmaker) celebrated the verdict as “a victory for 2nd Amendment rights around the nation.” Hat tip to Christian Ucles, who commented, “Really Kent? The death of a child is a victory for 2nd amendment rights. […] You make me sick. I can’t believe to think that you and I both went to the same church, an considered you a Brother in Christ. You value guns and the actions of gun owners over the lives of children not your own?” In the comment thread, Sorenson responded, “Your [sic] a political hack that [sic] doesn’t care about anything other then [sic] your parties [sic] talking points!”

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa House Democrat Ako Abdul-Samad reacted to the verdict here.

THIRD UPDATE: Comments from President Barack Obama and Representative Steve King are after the jump. King really goes out of his way to stir up the pot sometimes.

Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson no longer has to worry about open court testimony regarding his alleged theft of a homeschooling organization’s e-mail list on behalf of Representative Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign in late 2011. Bachmann has settled the lawsuit her former presidential campaign staffer Barb Heki announced last year. On Friday, Heki’s attorney filed legal papers to dismiss the case. In a statement provided to The Iowa Republican blog, Bachmann said,

“Barb Heki is a trustworthy person and a woman of integrity. She was a loyal member of the Bachmann for President team and capably performed her duties. I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that Barb had any part in misusing or misappropriating NICHE’s email list of homeschoolers and I consider her an exemplary homeschooling leader.”

It’s not clear whether Bachmann agreed to pay any compensation to Heki or her husband for damage done to their reputations. They had to resign from a national homeschooling organization’s board after the Bachmann campaign hung Heki out to dry. Heki won’t be able to re-file the lawsuit, because it was dismissed “with prejudice.”

Sorenson’s attorney Ted Sporer told the Des Moines Register that “the settlement included a release of all claims with no admission of wrongdoing by his client.” Previously, a trial date for Heki’s lawsuit had been set for May 2014, meaning the case would have been big local news shortly before the June primary election. To my knowledge, no Republican has declared plans to challenge Sorenson in Iowa Senate district 13, but I’d be looking for new representation if I were a Republican in that district. A former aide to Sorenson acknowledged downloading the list from Heki’s computer, but other sources have said Sorenson was involved.

Technically, the Urbandale Police Department has a criminal case open regarding the theft, but I doubt charges will ever be filed. Sorenson still faces an ethics investigation into indirect salary payments he allegedly received from the Bachmann campaign, but I don’t expect the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee to impose any serious consequences.  

None of Iowa’s four U.S. House members has issued a press release about the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance of phone and online communications, but all have now made some public comment about the controversy. I enclose the details below.

To my knowledge, none of Iowa’s representatives in Congress has issued an official statement on the recent revelations about broad surveillance of phone and electronic communications by the National Security Agency. However, both Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley have commented to the media about the story. Notably, Harkin expressed concern about the scope of intelligence gathering and called for President Barack Obama to give better guidance. In contrast to his image as a supporter of whistle-blowers, Grassley has expressed more interest in prosecuting Edward Snowden (the source of the leaks) than in investigating the NSA’s activities. Details are after the jump.

On a related note, here is a must-read post for anyone comforted by the president’s comments last week (“nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program is about”). Sociology professor Kieran Healy pretends to be a security analyst for the King of England in 1772, a period of growing political unrest in the American Colonies. Using “metadata” analysis only–that is, looking at social connections with no information about the content of people’s conversations or writings–Healy was able to identify Paul Revere as a prime suspect in activities disloyal to the crown.

But I say again, if a mere scribe such as I-one who knows nearly nothing-can use the very simplest of these methods to pick the name of a traitor like Paul Revere from those of two hundred and fifty four other men, using nothing but a list of memberships and a portable calculating engine, then just think what weapons we might wield in the defense of liberty one or two centuries from now.

Hat tip to Nathan Yau at Flowing Data.

The FBI is interviewing witnesses to alleged illegal payments involving staffers for Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign, Kevin Diaz reported for the Star Tribune over the weekend. One of the key witnesses, Bachmann’s former chief of staff Andy Parrish, recently submitted a sworn statement to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, leading to the appointment of a special investigator for an ethics complaint against Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson.

Follow me after the jump for more details.

While politics-watchers across the country were focused on creepy adulterer Mark Sanford’s victory in the special election to represent South Carolina’s first Congressional district, two important local elections took place in Iowa yesterday.

Warren County voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed casino for Norwalk (just south of Des Moines). A simple majority was needed to approve the gambling referendum, but “no” carried the day with 60 percent support, 6,545 votes to 4,327. Click here (pdf) for unofficial precinct-level results. I know many Democrats backed the Norwalk casino, and local officials said it would help create jobs and reverse some of the economic “drain” from Warren County to Polk County. If I lived in Warren County, I would have voted no for the same reasons discussed in this post on the proposed Cedar Rapids casino. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from a compelling commentary by Tom Coates, president of Consumer Credit of Des Moines. Meta observation: this will probably be the only time Bleeding Heartland ever links approvingly to the FAMiLY Leader’s website.

Johnson County voters rejected a proposed bond issue to build a new justice center. The proposal was revised somewhat after the previous referendum failed in November 2012. Although a 54 percent majority voted yes yesterday, a 60 percent super-majority is needed for bond issues to pass. Unofficial precinct-level results show 7,394 yes votes to 6,226 no. Percentage-wise, that’s a bigger loss for the yes camp than the last referendum (when 56 percent voted yes), even though some prominent voices flipped from “no” to “yes” this time around. The total number of votes cast was nearly four times times higher last November, when the justice center was on the presidential election ballot.

John Deeth has blogged extensively on this issue, and I think he made a compelling case for the justice center. Preventing Johnson County from building an adequate facility to house accused criminals is not an effective way to protest Iowa City police practices. There were strange bedfellows in the “no” camp: “People’s Republic” lefties and self-styled taxpayer advocacy groups. But I suppose that’s no more strange than the FAMiLY Leader and I agreeing on the Warren County gambling referendum.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission would have approved a casino license for Norwalk. The project would have drawn most of its business from the customer base for existing casinos in Altoona and Osceola.

Two explosions near the finish line of the Boston Marathon this afternoon killed at least two people and injured at least 90 more. The cause of the explosions is not yet clear. CNN is calling it a “terrorist attack.” President Barack Obama will deliver televised remarks shortly. I will update later with more news, but I wanted to put up a post for anyone in the Bleeding Heartland community who wants to discuss the tragedy. Statements released by Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack are after the jump.

UPDATE: At least three are confirmed dead, more than 100 injured. No individual or group has claimed responsibility for the bombs. Two unexploded devices were found elsewhere in Boston.

Organizers of a half-marathon and 5K race in Council Bluffs say the events will take place as scheduled this Sunday, with a “security presence.” UPDATE: There will be extra security at a Linn County race this weekend as well.

Contrary to some speculation on twitter, today is not the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. That happened on April 19, 1995.

Most political junkies love a good brawl. While Congress-watchers were paying attention to fights this week over the president’s proposed budget, confirming federal judges, or tightening up gun ownership regulations, a non-controversial but significant bill zoomed through the U.S. House and Senate.  

Yesterday the Iowa Senate unanimously confirmed eleven of Governor Terry Branstad’s appointees. You can find the full list of confirmations in the Senate Journal (pdf). The department or agency heads confirmed were:

Chuck Gipp, who has been serving as director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources since last May, shortly after his predecessor resigned;

Steve Lukan, whom Branstad hired to run the governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy last June;

Nick Gerhart, who replaced Susan Voss as state insurance commissioner at the end of 2012;

Robert von Wolffradt, whom Branstad appointed as Iowa’s chief information officer last May.

Seven of the nominees senators confirmed yesterday will serve on state boards, councils, or commissions, including Joanne Stockdale, a former chair of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry who is one of Branstad’s appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission.

Chalk up another blow to the “Hastert rule”. Today the U.S. House approved the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, even though a majority of House Republicans opposed the bill. All 199 Democrats present were part of the 286 to 138 majority supporting the bill, including Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Unburdened by the prospect of a competitive GOP primary for U.S. Senate, Tom Latham (IA-03) was among 87 House Republicans who also voted for the bill. Steve King (IA-04) was one of 138 Republicans to oppose it.

The Violence Against Women Act’s previous reauthorization expired at the end of September 2011, but last year the House and Senate failed to reconcile the bills passed in each chamber. (Iowa’s representatives split on party lines over the House version of the Violence Against Women Act.) The contentious issues centered on protections for LGBT victims of violence, undocumented immigrants, and a provision granting tribal courts “full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country.” House Republican leaders capitulated on those issues by allowing the Senate’s bill to pass today.

Loebsack’s official comment on today’s vote is after the jump. I’ll update this post with more political reaction as needed.

UPDATE: Added comments from Braley and King below. Note the priceless double-speak from King: he emphasizes voting for the Violence Against Women Act, not clarifying that he voted for the Republican effort to substitute the House version of the bill, which failed. His press release does not acknowledge that on final passage, King voted against the bill President Barack Obama’s going to sign. How many Iowa media will report that King voted for the reauthorization, without realizing that he only voted for the House version? Request to Bleeding Heartland readers who live in IA-04: please let me know if you hear a news story that wrongly implies King voted for the Violence Against Women Act.

A new report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that the youth incarceration rate in the U.S. “reached a new 35-year low” in 2010. Iowa was one of 44 states where fewer young people were locked up in 2010 than in 1997.

The Egyptian company that received the largest tax incentive package in Iowa history has a subsidiary accused of defrauding the federal government out of $332 million, Ryan Foley reported yesterday in a must-read story for the Associated Press. Excerpts from Foley’s article are after the jump, but I strongly recommend reading the whole piece.

Iowa Economic Development Authority Director Debi Durham admitted that the federal lawsuit over improper contracts “did not come up in our due diligence,” which is no surprise. Durham’s negotiating strategy seems to have been not to question anything Orascom executives told Iowa officials. Although Governor Terry Branstad has claimed Iowa landed the fertilizer plant deal “by the skin of our teeth,” evidence suggests Orascom would have invested in Iowa even without generous state and local tax incentives.

The U.S. Senate approved the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization today by 78 votes to 22 (roll call). All of the no votes came from Senate Republicans. It was “deja vu all over again” for Iowa’s senators; just like last year, Democrat Tom Harkin voted to reauthorize the VAWA, while Republican Chuck Grassley voted against the bill. Grassley supports most of the VAWA but objects to a few provisions favored by Senate Democrats. Last week the Senate rejected a substitute bill offered by Grassley.

For more details about the reauthorization and how Iowa’s senators voted on other proposed amendments, follow me after the jump.  

State Senator Kent Sorenson has made news lately leading the charge to restore the death penalty for some crimes in Iowa. I wonder whether that popular cause will be enough to save his political career, in light of recent claims by Republicans who have worked closely with him.  

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is unfinished business from the last Congress. First adopted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of September 2011. Since then, Congress has funded VAWA programs through continuing spending resolutions.

Iowa’s Congressional delegation split on party lines when the House and the Senate passed their own versions of the VAWA reauthorization last year.  

As the Senate took up the act again this week, Senator Chuck Grassley offered an amendment to address what he views as problems with the Democratic bill. Senators rejected Grassley’s substitute yesterday by 65 votes to 34 (roll call). Ten Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus to oppose the amendment. The Senate is likely to approve the Democratic version of the VAWA reauthorization early next week. That bill “would authorize $659 million over five years for the programs, down 17 percent from the last reauthorization in 2005.” That funding drop is remarkable when you consider that in 2005, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.

After the jump I’ve enclosed more details about Grassley’s amendment.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady delivered the annual Condition of the Judiciary speech to Iowa House and Senate members yesterday. As he did in 2011 and again last year, Cady appealed to lawmakers to fund the judiciary at an adequate level. Highlights from his case are below.