Sample ballot used in Maine (which has a ranked choice voting system) in 2018

Jason Benell lives in Des Moines with his wife and two children. He is a combat veteran, former city council candidate, and president of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers.

Ranked choice voting should be the bare minimum for a society interested in the most representative and responsive government. It is extremely frustrating to see Iowa Republican legislative leaders work against a more balanced and representative approach to democracy by banning ranked choice voting as part of the election bill numbered House File 2610 and Senate File 2380.

Opponents of ranked choice voting never give any reason or provide any citation supporting their position. It simply reflects a commitment to “the way its always been done,” along with fear mongering about some amorphous specter of fraud—even though the method of counting votes has nothing to do with fraud or misrepresentation. 

Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director Megan Tooker has determined that state law requiring “paid for by” attribution lines for political advertising also applies to videos posted on free websites such as YouTube. David Chung, a member of the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee, had filed an ethics complaint against Brad Anderson, the Democratic candidate for secretary of state. (Chung is from Cedar Rapids, as is Anderson’s GOP opponent Paul Pate.) Anderson’s television commercial contains the standard attribution line, but some of his web videos did not. After the jump I’ve posted the relevant portion of Iowa Code.

Tooker informed Anderson that in her opinion, campaign videos available online should also include a “paid for” statement. Anderson’s campaign immediately altered the videos to comply. Jason Noble reported for the Des Moines Register, “So long as Anderson republishes the videos with appropriate attribution statements or publishes a corrective notice in the newspaper, he will not face a fine or penalty.”

Responding to my request for comment, the Anderson campaign noted, “Although state law is ambiguous related to requiring disclaimers on free YouTube videos, in the abundance of caution we have added disclaimers to all of our YouTube videos and will continue to moving forward.”

In a press release yesterday, Iowa GOP Co-Chairman Cody Hoefert thundered, “we now learn that Brad Anderson either ignored Iowa’s election laws or does not believe they apply to him. Either way, this only goes to underscore the fact that he is not someone Iowans can trust to uphold the integrity of their elections.” News flash for Hoefert: the Anderson campaign was able to point to many web videos that lacked “paid for” statements while promoting the Iowa GOP and/or Republican candidates and office-holders. For instance, Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign produced a video featuring Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds in order to drum up 2014 Iowa caucus attendance. In that video, she urged supporters to help elect Republicans up and down the ticket in 2014. Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has also promoted his candidacy through web videos without attribution statements. The Iowa GOP itself produced a video promoting State Auditor Mary Mosiman without any attribution statement.

Obviously, Chung and the Iowa GOP were only playing out a stunt to gain an edge for Pate in what looks like a close contest for secretary of state. Nevertheless, it’s useful for Tooker to clarify that this portion of state law applies to web videos as well as to television commercials.  

Restrictions on voting rights adopted in 14 states so far in 2011 “could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012,” according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Iowa House Assistant Majority Leader Renee Schulte confirmed yesterday that she will seek a third term in the state legislature in 2012. Her announcement sets up a likely rematch with former State Representative Art Staed, the Democrat Schulte defeated by 13 votes in 2008.

While Bleeding Heartland users discuss yesterday’s straw poll in this thread and Tim Pawlenty’s departure from the scene here, this thread is for any other news on your mind this weekend. Links to some disturbing stories that caught my eye are after the jump.

Secretary of State-elect Matt Schultz has announced several important hires in the past week. Former Republican Congressional candidate Jim Gibbons will serve as Chief Deputy and Director of Business Services, while longtime Story County Auditor Mary Mosiman will run the Elections Division.

Follow me after the jump for background and analysis on those appointments.  

Incoming Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced today that former State Representative Doug Struyk will serve as his policy advisor and legal counsel. Schultz has been a Council Bluffs city councilman, while Struyk represented House district 99, containing the northeast part of that city, for four terms. He was first elected to the Iowa House as a Democrat but switched to the Republican side early on.

Before retiring from the legislature, Struyk was the top-ranking Republican on the Iowa House State Government Committee, which considers bills related to election law. In 2007, Struyk voted against HF 653, the bill enacting same-day voter registration in Iowa, as did every other House Republican. Click here for the bill history, including a long list of Republican-sponsored amendments to weaken that measure. Roll call votes on the amendments to HF 653 and the final bill are in this House Journal (pdf file).

More concerning, Struyk was one of only six state representatives to vote against SF 2347, the 2008 bill requiring all Iowa counties to use paper ballots and optical scanner machines. The House Journal for that day (see page 806 of this pdf file) doesn’t record any debate or proposed amendments to that bill, which passed 92 to 6. I couldn’t find any record explaining why Struyk opposed that bill.

Schultz made photo ID requirements for all voters the centerpiece of his campaign for secretary of state. I hope he won’t also try to roll back same-day registration or paper ballot requirements. Election-day registrants are already required to show photo ID and proof of address in Iowa. Anyone who claims to be worried about voter fraud should support the ban on paperless touchscreen voting machines.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user thomasjschultz says that Matt Schultz supports the paper ballot requirement. His campaign website included this statement on same-day registration:

The Legislature passed, the Governor signed into law, and the current Secretary of State supported Same-Day Voter Registration, which has created the potential for voter irregularities and fraud. As Secretary of State I will fight to reform Same-Day Voter Registration and require all ballots cast by voters registering on Election Day to be cast as Provisional Ballots. Requiring these ballots to be cast as Provisional Ballots will ensure that anyone attempting to cheat the system by fraudulently registering on Election Day will not be able to change the outcome of the vote.

Secretary of State Mauro reported in 2009 that nearly 46,000 Iowans used election-day registration in the November 2008 general election: 21,553 Iowans registered to vote for the first time on that election day, and 24,376 had previously been registered to vote in a different county. Current law already requires county auditors to follow up on election-day registrants: “If the county auditor is unable to locate a voter after sending two notices, the matter is reported to the county attorney and the Secretary of State.”

On Wednesday IowaVoter posted a diary here about a bill passed by the Iowa House to allow absentee ballots to be counted before election day. Click here to read the text of HF 670, formerly known as HSB 133.

IowaVoter uses humor to raise valid concerns about this bill. Quite a few people could be tipped off about the early voting results, and if they leak the information, some candidates could gain an advantage on election day. Lots of state legislative races in Iowa were decided by very narrow margins last November, and it is not uncommon for a local or county-level race to be decided by a handful of votes.

I can’t see any public interest served by this bill. Even though early voting has grown in Iowa, with about a third of the electorate casting early ballots last fall, we still got our election results promptly.

Mr. desmoinesdem pointed me to this site, which shows that only California and Colorado allow early ballots to be counted before election day. Many states don’t allow them to be opened until after the polls close on election day (Iowa law currently allows counting to begin the morning of election day).

I can understand why many would support early counting of absentee ballots in a huge state like California. Even though California election officials were allowed to start counting on October 25 of last year, some had hundreds of thousands of votes still uncounted after election day. But California has three counties more populous than all of Iowa, six more counties with at least 1 million residents, plus another 12 counties that have more residents than Iowa’s largest county (Polk).

There is no logistical need for county auditors in Iowa to open the early ballots before election day. I would rather wait a few more hours for the final results than open the door to political mischief by insiders.

HF 670 is worse than a solution in search of a problem–it’s a solution that could spark allegations of fraud and misconduct every time we have a very close election outcome. The Iowa Senate should reject this bill. If they pass it, Governor Culver should veto it.

John Deeth posted a good summary of bills on the election process that the Iowa legislature may consider this year. I agree with Deeth that teenagers who will be 18 by election day should be able to register at any point during the calendar year of the election, and that Iowa should keep its late poll closing time (9 pm).

Unfortunately, no one appears willing to step up and lead on the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) act, which would create a voluntary public-financing system for state elections. It’s worked very well, commanding bipartisan support, in states like Arizona and Maine.

Our Democratic leaders in Iowa seem to enjoy the current system, where special interests flood the capitol with money and individuals can give as much as they want to incumbents.

This is one reason why I’ve been saying no to all solicitations for the Iowa House and Senate Democrats’ funds. I will give to individual legislators and candidates who share my priorities–not to a fund that increases the power of leaders standing in the way of change.

I note with amusement that some legislators would have us believe it’s important to prevent candidates and their spouses from receiving a salary from campaign funds. No one who follows politics can credibly argue that this is the biggest ethical issue related to campaign finance.

I agree with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, which wrote of last year’s attempt to close the “Fallon loophole,”

A thistle to Democratic legislators who would bar candidates from drawing a salary from campaign donors. This bill (aimed at Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell) is an Incumbent Protection Act. Challengers who give up day jobs to run for office must fend for themselves or be independently wealthy. Meanwhile, the taxpayers support or subsidize incumbents. If contributors want to spend their own money for the care and feeding of a candidate, it is no business of the Iowa Legislature.

I wonder how many of the legislators backing this bill have a problem with Joe Biden, who has employed his sister Valerie Biden Owens to manage all of his Senate and presidential campaigns.

The legalized corruption in our political system has nothing to do with a handful of candidates drawing salaries and everything to do with the excessive influence of wealthy individuals and corporate interests.

Share your suggestions for improving Iowa’s election law in this thread.

A draft opinion out of the Federal Election Commission suggests that money contributed to Democratic candidates through the ActBlue clearinghouse may not be eligible for public matching funds, because ActBlue is registered as a PAC.

However, ActBlue does not function like an ordinary PAC–it’s just a convenient way for individual donors to direct online contributions to different candidates.

This issue came up because John Edwards’ presidential campaign has opted into the public financing system for the primaries. He has raised more than $4 million on ActBlue. Some of that would not be matchable anyway (because only the first $250 from each donor can receive public matching funds), but a significant amount should be eligible for the matching funds.

For background on this issue, read this post by Kos.

Adam Bonin, an attorney who covers regulatory issues at Daily Kos, is sending this letter to the FEC on behalf of Kos and BlogPAC.

Neither Kos nor Adam B supports Edwards, but as Adam notes,

This isn’t about supporting the Edwards campaign — I’ve made my feelings clear on that subject.  It’s about protecting ActBlue and the public financing system, and pushing for a legal regime which respects technological innovation.  Please join us in this fight — you only have until noon on Thursday to submit comments.

I encourage you to read Adam’s whole post–it’s quite informative.

The Edwards campaign is making it easy for citizens to submit comments to the FEC on this issue. Check out this diary by Tracy Joan, who works for the campaign.

The non-profit group Public Campaign is urging people to contact the FEC as well. After the jump, I’ve posted the full text of an e-mail I received this morning from Public Campaign. Or, you can click here and go to the Public Campaign website, where you can add your name to the letter they are sending to the FEC.