Terry Branstad was incensed last year when outgoing Governor Chet Culver quickly agreed to contract terms proposed by AFSCME and other unions representing state employees. Culver signed off on AFSCME’s request for a 2 percent across-the-board raise on July 1, 2011, followed by a 1 percent raise on January 1, 2012, another 2 percent raise on July 1, 2012, and a 1 percent raise on January 1, 2013. Other unions also asked for modest wage increases during the next two fiscal years.

On principle, Branstad felt Culver should have left the negotiating to the person who would be governor during the contract period. As a practical matter, Branstad insisted that the state of Iowa could not afford the salary hikes. He and other administration officials called on public sector unions to renegotiate the contracts, but union leaders refused to come back to the negotiating table.

This week Branstad formally asked the state legislature to give non-union state employees the same pay increases those represented by unions will receive.

While the governor continues to believe this contract spends too much money at a time when the state cannot afford it, there are not two classes of state employees, everyone is together and should be treated the same,” [Branstad’s spokesman Tim] Albrecht said.

The governor has not recommended the state pay for the upcoming salary increases. That means that state departments must find the money elsewhere in their budgets to pay for the salary increases.

House Study Bill 247 provides for the salary increases, as well as a few other things on the governor’s wish list. For instance, the bill would “lift the cap on the salary of Iowa’s economic development director, which Rep. Tyler Olson, D-Cedar Rapids, described as troubling.”

AFSCME and other state employee unions won this round, but count on a bruising battle when it’s time to negotiate contracts covering fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Branstad will resist pay increases and will demand benefit cuts, including substantial employee contributions to health insurance expenses. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the contracts for state employee unions end up in arbitration during the next go-around.

If Republicans gain an Iowa Senate majority in the 2012 elections, union-busting will be high on the agenda. A bill to limit state employees’ collective bargaining rights and curtail binding arbitration passed the Iowa House in March after a marathon floor debate. The bill died in the Iowa Senate Labor Committee.

P.S.–Branstad isn’t getting along much better with private-sector unions. Yesterday the Central Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council and the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Building Trades Council filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force the governor and other state entities to honor project labor agreements for construction projects in Coralville and Marshalltown.

Despite a well-funded campaign to extend the 1 percent local option sales tax for another 20 years, voters in the Cedar Rapids metro area (Cedar Rapids, Marion, Hiawatha, Robins and Fairfax, vote breakdown here) rejected the May 3 ballot measure by less than a 1 percent margin.

The defeat will be a blow to Mayor Ron Corbett, the City Council and a long list of the city’s largest and best-known employers. Those employers contributed to a fund-raising effort that raised nearly $500,000 to get the message out to the community that the city needed to help fund its own flood-protection system.

Corbett was hoping to head to Des Moines on Wednesday to tell lawmakers face-to-face that Cedar Rapidians had agreed to its part in flood-protection funding.

The “yes” campaign on the local option sales tax raised more than 100 times as much money as its opponents. The “no” campaign was a grassroots effort, lacking the funds for radio or television commercials.

Half of the funds raised over 20 years via the 1 percent sales tax were to be used for a flood prevention system protecting both sides of the river in Cedar Rapids. Corbett had argued that extending the sales tax would improve prospects for the city to receive state and federal funds for the project, estimated to cost approximately $375 million.

Legislation pending in the Iowa House and Senate would allow Cedar Rapids to use $200 million in state sales tax revenues for flood prevention over the next 20 years. The bill cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, and a House Appropriations subcommittee advanced a companion bill on May 3. I doubt the Iowa House and Senate will pass this legislation now that Cedar Rapids area voters have rejected the local option sales tax–unless Cedar Rapids officials have a “plan B” up their sleeves.

Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project and Iowa Fiscal Partnership has argued that creating a “state sales-tax-increment financing district” to fund flood prevention is a “gimmick.” In Fisher’s view, this method conceals real state spending (see also here). On the other hand, Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman notes that hundreds of small businesses in neighborhoods near downtown will be hurt if the flood prevention plan fails to materialize.

On a related note, the future of the $75 million Cedar Rapids Convention Complex project is uncertain. City officials and Governor Terry Branstad’s administration have not resolved differences over a project labor agreement signed a month before Branstad issued an executive order banning such labor agreements on state-funded projects. On May 3, the Central Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council and the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Building Trades Council filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force Branstad to honor project labor agreements for construction projects in Coralville and Marshalltown.

The trades councils’ lawsuit said that the governor and the state have breached their contract with the labor councils by eliminating project labor agreements is place before the governor took office. The lawsuit also states that the governor’s action violates the Iowa Constitution regarding separation of powers, Iowa’s Home Rule law and federal law.

The outcome of that lawsuit could determine whether the Branstad administration is able to withhold $15 million in state I-JOBS funds for the Cedar Rapids Convention Complex project. The Iowa Finance Authority threatened to do so in February, and the governor rejected compromises Corbett proposed to honor the project labor agreement as well as the spirit of Branstad’s executive order.

UPDATE: More reaction to yesterday’s vote is after the jump.

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

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

Last week, a group of conservative Iowa House Republicans finally made good on their promise to introduce articles of impeachment against the four remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the 2009 Varnum v Brien decision on marriage. The impeachment bills won’t make it out of committee, let alone the Iowa House, but there may be some political fallout from the effort.

After the jump I examine the articles of impeachment, future prospects for their backers and recent news related to the 2012 judicial retention elections.

This week Governor Terry Branstad declared April to be “Abortion Recovery Month” in Iowa. Anti-choice organizations and crisis pregnancy centers were invited to the proclamation signing, and women who regret their abortions spoke at a press conference. Human beings have complex reactions to significant life events, and I feel empathy for anyone who feels sad about important choices. However, it is inaccurate to suggest that all women who exercise their legal right to an abortion need to go through a “recovery” process. The American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion concluded in a 2008 report that “among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy. […] the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.” Some mental health professionals believe that “emotional issues, especially feelings of guilt, begin to rise along with anti-choice efforts to restrict abortion.”

The Iowa House approved a 20-week abortion ban at the end of March. The bill is modeled on a Nebraska statute and is intended to deter an Omaha-based doctor from opening a new abortion clinic in Council Bluffs. It has stalled in the Senate Government Oversight Committee. Committee Chairman Tom Courtney said in mid-April that it was too late in the legislative session to adequately review the bill this year, and he would prefer to take it up in 2012. Council Bluffs Mayor Tom Hanafan, a Democrat, recently urged the Senate to act on the bill before adjourning. The mayor does not want his city to become “home to a clinic that specializes in later term abortions.” Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who represents the Council Bluffs area, has said he would not block the abortion bill from coming to a vote and is letting the normal committee process work.

Women who are pregnant and planning to stay pregnant should be aware that April is cesarean awareness month. At the request of Iowa chapters of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, Branstad issued a proclamation to that effect. The c-section rate in Iowa rose to 30.2 percent in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is way above the optimal level, but the national average is even higher at 32.9 percent. The central Iowa chapter of the International Cesarean Awareness Network posted statistics for c-sections and vaginal births after cesareans (VBACs) in Iowa hospitals here. Unfortunately, more than three quarters of Iowa hospitals prohibit pregnant women from even attempting VBACs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2010 initiative set a goal of reducing the cesarean birth rate for low-risk women to 15 percent for women giving birth for the first time and 72 percent for women who have had a prior cesarean birth. Having a doula present during labor has been proven to reduce the need for cesareans and other major interventions.

Whether or not they are able to become pregnant, all sexually active people should be aware that April is STD Awareness Month. The Centers for Disease Control has lots of relevant facts and figures here. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland clinics across Iowa are encouraging people to get themselves tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

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

UPDATE: State Representative Kurt Swaim is not running for re-election in the new House district 82, which covers Davis and Van Buren counties and most of Jefferson County, including Fairfield. Swaim and fellow Democrat Curt Hanson were both placed in that district, but most of the population lives on Hanson’s current turf. Swaim was one of four House Democrats to vote for the 20-week abortion ban, one of three House Democrats to vote for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and one of nine House Democrats to vote for a bill banning secret recordings on Iowa farms. Hanson voted against all of those bills.

Before this year’s legislative session began, I thought the Democrats in the Iowa Senate would more easily find common ground with Governor Terry Branstad than with the Republican-controlled Iowa House. Branstad dealt with a Democratic or divided legislature for 14 of his 16 previous years as governor, while most of the House Republicans weren’t serving in the legislature at that time.

This week Branstad proved me wrong, rejecting key provisions of a compromise bill that passed both chambers unanimously and a Democratic offer to meet him halfway on biennial budgeting. Follow me after the jump for more on those stories.

Governor Terry Branstad, Republican Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal met yesterday to talk about the state budget. Paulsen left the meeting feeling less optimistic that the Iowa legislature will finish its work for the year on schedule, by April 29. Senate President Jack Kibbie concurred that the budget discussion “didn’t go very well.” Unresolved issues include the overall amount of state spending, allocations for education and human services, and the right approach for commercial property tax reform.

Kibbie told IowaPolitics.com that the biggest roadblock is Branstad’s commitment to two-year budgeting. The governor vetoed a one-year transportation appropriations bill last week, claiming two-year plans were essential to “restore predictability and stability to the state budgeting process.” In a press release on Monday, Branstad repeated that his administration “remains committed to a biennial state budget,” which, he said, would provide “predictability for communities while ensuring a solid fiscal foundation for future generations of Iowans.”

I’ve never understood how Branstad can say with a straight face that it’s fiscally responsible to approve a two-year spending plan in the absence of two-year revenue projections. Furthermore, most states that adopt biennial budgets face a projected budget gap larger than Iowa’s for fiscal year 2012. Names and numbers are after the jump.

In the first major breakthrough on tax policy this legislative session, a bill containing tax cuts and supplemental appropriations cleared an Iowa House and Senate conference committee Monday, then passed both chambers unanimously.

Details are after the jump, along with recent news on efforts to reach a compromise on the state budget for fiscal year 2012.

Governor Terry Branstad announced this morning that he will sign the redistricting bill approved yesterday by the Iowa House and Senate. While taping an episode of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program, Branstad asserted that all four Congressional districts will be competitive.

I’ve posted the Congressional district map after the jump. Click here to view the state House and Senate district maps and other redistricting information on the Iowa legislature’s official site.

Soon after Branstad’s announcement, Representative Tom Latham sent his supportersan e-mail announcing his plans to run for Congress in Iowa’s new third district. I don’t blame him for wanting to avoid a Republican primary against Steve King in the new fourth district. Latham’s move sets up a contest between him and Democrat Leonard Boswell, who lives in Polk County. Boswell currently represents Polk County, the largest in the district. Latham currently represents Warren, Dallas and Madison counties.

Boswell’s campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee already released statements about Latham’s plans today. I’ve posted those after the jump. Boswell is on the DCCC’s list of “Frontline” incumbents who may be vulnerable in 2012. The DCCC will hit Latham and other Republicans hard over their vote today for Paul Ryan’s fiscal year 2012 budget resolution. Boswell’s statement emphasized his connection to the district, noting that during his political career he has represented nearly 70 percent of the new IA-03 population. Boswell served three terms in the Iowa Senate before winning his first term in Congress.

In other redistricting news, State Representative Janet Petersen announced today that she will run for the Iowa Senate in the new district 18 (map). She was first elected to House district 64 in northwest Des Moines in 2000. I’ve posted Petersen’s campaign announcement below.

Any comments about the new maps or Iowa elections in 2012 are welcome in this thread. I will update the post if more state House and Senate candidates announce plans to move, retire or run for higher office.

UPDATE: Boswell spoke to Shane D’Aprile of The Hill this week:

“I would just say that I’ve had a tough race every time and that’s what I expect,” said Boswell, adding that his new district will have “half the counties I’ve served before anyway.”

“The one thing [Latham] would have to think about, or even King for that matter, if he were to move south, is that if you’re going to represent the capital city, you better be ready for a tough competition every year,” Boswell said. “So they’ll have to really think about that. Whereas if one of them wins that new 4th district, they could probably coast a little bit by comparison.”  

SECOND UPDATE: No surprise, King confirmed he is running for re-election in the new fourth district.

THIRD UPDATE: Branstad signed the redistricting plan into law on April 19.

The Iowa House and Senate voted this morning to accept the first redistricting plan proposed by the Legislative Services Agency. Click here to view maps of the redrawn Congressional and state legislative districts.

The Senate vote was 48 to 1, with Republican Sandy Greiner the only dissenter. Greiner would not face re-election in 2012 under the plan, but her new district contains more of Johnson County, and for that reason would have a Democratic voter registration advantage. Republican State Senator James Hahn had previously said he would vote no on this plan; perhaps he and fellow Republican Shawn Hamerlinck have figured out what to do now that they are in the same Senate district.

John Deeth explains here which senators would face the voters in 2012 and how some potential contests between two incumbents might shake out. I would add that Pat Ward is not guaranteed an uncontested GOP primary in the new 22nd district, containing Waukee, Windsor Heights, Clive and a lot of West Des Moines. Other people, including former radio talk show host Steve Deace, may be interested in that safe GOP seat.

In the Iowa House, 91 representatives voted for the plan, including all Democrats present and most of the Republican caucus. Seven House Republicans voted no. Clel Baudler’s House seat was and remains solidly Republican; maybe he just doesn’t like the idea of being in the new third Congressional district (a swing district).

Mark Brandenburg and Mary Ann Hanusa were two more no votes; the plan puts them into the same Council Bluffs House seat, leaving Democrats a possible pickup in the empty district containing the rest of Council Bluffs.

Annette Sweeney was another no vote; she’s risen to the position of House Agriculture Committee chair but now will be thrown into a district with Pat Grassley. He didn’t vote against the plan, so maybe Sweeney feels she will get the short end of the stick there.

Two members of the House Republican leadership team voted against the map. One was Assistant Majority Leader Renee Schulte, and I’m not surprised. She won her Cedar Rapids district by only 13 votes in 2008, and the new map gives Democrats a larger registration advantage there. UPDATE: Schulte said she opposed splitting the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridor into two Congressional districts.

House Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Kaufmann was the other member of the Republican leadership team to vote no today. Deeth notes that his new district leans Democratic, losing part of Muscatine County while gaining more of Johnson County. UPDATE: Kaufmann wrote to Deeth:

It would have been nice for you to ask me about my NO vote. It had nothing to do with my new House seat. My seat has always been Democratic-leaning and was actually almost 1200 plus Democrats a few years ago. In fact since it is rural Johnson County it is only about a 500 vote difference than my current district even after the 2010 election. Actually a new map could have been much worse for me in party registration […].

My NO vote had to do with the new Senate District and my constituents, both Democratic and Republican, wanting uniformity in their Senate District instead of a rural county attached to an urban area. My NO vote reflected the desire to have a conversation about uniformity within Senate Districts, something I have talked about for years.

Governor Terry Branstad now has three days to sign or veto the redistricting bill. He has promised a careful review but also indicated that he hasn’t heard “a compelling reason to reject it.” For that matter, neither has anyone else. Yesterday The Iowa Republican blog publisher Craig Robinson suggested that the maps aren’t good for Republicans long-term and said he’d like to see what was behind door number 2. Perhaps Robinson is trying to encourage Branstad to veto the plan, or he could just be spinning.

After today’s votes in the legislature, Representative Dave Loebsack confirmed that he will move from Linn County, which would be part of the first Congressional district, into the new second district, covering most of southeast Iowa.

UPDATE: Statements from Loebsack, Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn and Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky are after the jump.

Tom Latham’s press secretary told the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth that “the congressman will have no statement on the redistricting plan and what it means for him, since it’s still not official, pending action by the governor.”

SECOND UPDATE: Added Bruce Braley’s statement below.

THIRD UPDATE: Added Leonard Boswell’s statement. James Q. Lynch talked to several of the Republicans who voted no. Excerpts from their comments are below.

The five-member Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission unanimously recommended today that the Iowa legislature “accept the first proposed Congressional and Legislative redistricting plan,” submitted by the Legislative Services Agency on March 31. I’ve posted the full text of the commission’s report after the jump. Key excerpt:

a. The Commission is grateful to those members of the public who made the effort to provide oral and written testimony concerning the redistricting plan and for those members of the public who attended the public hearings conducted throughout the state. While the concerns expressed by the participants at the public hearings concerning the plan were thoughtful and constructive, they were not within the constitutional and statutory criteria upon which the plan is to be evaluated by the Commission and the Commission is of the opinion that the Legislative Services Agency has satisfied those constitutional and statutory requirements.

b. The Commission is supportive of the many comments heard during the public hearings praising Iowa’s unique and nonpartisan redistricting process.

The commission’s report did not specifically address concerns that Bettendorf resident James Davis raised in a 20-page document last week. Bleeding Heartland discussed Davis’ arguments about the “convenience” standard and other criticisms of the redistricting plan here.

Click here to download the proposed Iowa maps for four Congressional districts, 100 House districts and 50 Senate districts. The Legislative Services Agency’s report on the redistricting proposal is available there too. The Iowa House and Senate may consider House Study Bill 235 as early as this Thursday. If both chambers approve the plan and Governor Terry Branstad signs the bill, Iowa will be the first state to complete its redistricting process.

On Iowa Public Television over the weekend, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said of the proposal, “I look at the House map, I see a pathway to Republican control;  I can also see a pathway to Democratic control.  So that tells me maybe there’s a heightened level of fairness.” Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal commented, “I’d actually say the opposite.  We kind of both don’t like what we see but don’t figure there’s a way to get a better map.  If it was actually stacked pretty well for Democrats, I’m pretty sure Speaker Paulsen is going to take it down in the House and vice versa.  So we both look at the map and see no guarantees, but we both see a pathway. And that is […] that is kind of the essence of a fair map.”

Share any thoughts about the redistricting plan or process in this thread.

P.S.: A rumor going around says Christie Vilsack has been calling state legislators in the proposed second Congressional district.

P.P.S: Representative Dave Loebsack is said to be calling state legislators in his district too.

A pathetically small crowd of about a dozen people turned up for the final public hearings on the first redistricting plan for Iowa last night. As was the case at the previous hearings, few people stood up to criticize the plan, and the complaints raised were not cohesive.

The low turnout and lack of consistent talking points suggest that neither political party mobilized supporters to pack these hearings. That in turn suggests neither Democratic nor Republican leaders believe this map clearly puts them at a disadvantage. More details about the hearings and the next steps in the redistricting process are after the jump.  

Governor Terry Branstad told the crowd at a Republican fundraiser this weekend that he will use his veto power until the legislature sends him a two-year budget to sign.

He didn’t mention that Iowa lacks two-year revenue projections to back up his promises to spend no more than state government takes in. More background and details are 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minutes ago the Legislative Services Agency released a new map of Iowa political boundaries, containing four Congressional districts, 50 state Senate districts and 100 state House districts. I don’t see the map on the state legislature’s official site yet but will update this post as more information becomes available today.

This thread is for any comments related to Iowa redistricting. I posted a timeline of upcoming events in the process after the jump.

I liked one veteran Republican lawmaker’s advice:

If the map is good to you, stay quiet, advises Rep. Stewart Iverson, R-Clarion, who was Senate majority during redistricting leader 10 years ago. If it’s not, stay quieter.

On the other hand, Kathie Obradovich’s counsel to legislators in today’s column baffled me:

Redistricting will be painful. Do it fast. [….] Hurt feelings and simmering resentment over redistricting can pollute the caucus and spill over into discussion of other bills. Best to get it over with as soon as humanly possible.

We’re talking about a map that will affect Iowa elections for a decade. If the Legislative Services Agency doesn’t produce a map that seems fair to both parties the first time, have them do it again. There is no perfect redistricting plan, but improving a mediocre map is more important than wrapping things up fast at the capitol.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reports that the map throws Republican Representatives Tom Latham and Steve King together in the new fourth Congressional district. Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack are both in the new first district. Representative Leonard Boswell has the third district to himself, and the second district (which conveniently contains Christie Vilsack’s home town of Mount Pleasant) is open. Presumably Loebsack would move to the second district if this map were accepted.

Iowa Public Radio’s Jeneane Beck tweets, “If new map approved – 14 State Senate districts with more than one incumbent and seven with no incumbent.” In that case, I doubt this map will be approved.

SECOND UPDATE: The maps are now up on the legislature’s website, along with the proposed redistricting plan report.

THIRD UPDATE: Although Leonard Boswell has the new IA-03 to himself, it’s not a good map for him, with the district stretching to the south and west of Polk County. That reminds me of the IA-04 map from the 1990s, which helped bury Neal Smith.

I suspect Iowa House Republicans won’t be happy to see nine new districts where GOP incumbents would face each other. Three incumbents–Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, Stew Iverson and Henry Rayhons–all reside in the new House district 8. Only three House districts are home to more than one Democratic incumbent. The new district 13 in Sioux City would pit first-term Republican Jeremy Taylor against first-term Democrat Chris Hall.

FOURTH UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added some highlights from the Legislative Services Agency’s report. The districts don’t look very compact to me, but they are fairly close in population.

IA-01 has 761,548 people, -41 from ideal

IA-02 has 761,624 people, +35 from ideal

IA-03 has 761,612 people, +23 from ideal

IA-04 has 761,571 people, -18 from ideal

I also posted reaction comments from Representatives Braley and Boswell, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky.

You can find the maps for individual Iowa House and Senate districts here and here. As a Windsor Heights Democrat, I don’t like the looks of my new House district 43 or Senate district 22.

FIFTH UPDATE: Swing State Project helpfully provides the presidential results for each new Congressional district.

IA-01 went 58 percent Obama, 40.1 percent McCain in 2008, and 53.1 percent Kerry, 46.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-02 went 56.6 percent Obama, 41.2 percent McCain in 2008, and 52.5 percent Kerry, 46.5 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-03 went 51.9 percent Obama, 45.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 47.1 percent Kerry, 52.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-04 went 48.1 percent Obama, 49.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 44.2 percent Kerry, 55.0 percent Bush in 2004.

FINAL UPDATE: Added Loebsack’s statement after the jump, which makes clear he would move into IA-02 if this map is adopted.

Bleeding Heartland will continue to cover the implications of the first redistricting plan next week. I’ll be curious to see what arguments people make at the public hearings, aside from complaints about communities of interest being divided. Not only are Linn and Johnson counties separated, but the Des Moines metro area is split among three districts.

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

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

Political junkies anxiously await the Legislative Services Agency’s release of a new Iowa map at 8:15 am on March 31. To learn more about the process, check out the “Introduction to Redistricting in Iowa” from the state legislature’s official website. The Legislative Guide to Redistricting in Iowa (pdf) contains many details on the history of redistricting and legal requirements governing the process for drawing new maps. Here’s a timeline of what to expect during this process.

March 31: The Legislative Services Agency will deliver a congressional and legislative redistricting plan to both chambers of the General Assembly (the law requires this to be done by April 1).

April 4-7: The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission must “schedule and conduct at least three public hearings in different geographic regions of the state and to issue a report to the General Assembly summarizing the information and testimony received.” This year the commission scheduled four public hearings, one for each Congressional district. Locations and times of public hearings scheduled for April 4-7 are at the end of this post.

April 13: The commission must then report to the legislature on the input from public hearings, no later than two weeks after the Legislative Services Agency submitted the plan.

Second half of April: The Iowa House and Senate must bring a redistricting bill to a vote “expeditiously” but no sooner than three days after receiving the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission’s report. The map receives an up or down vote; lawmakers cannot amend it during this stage of the process.

Late May or early June: If the Iowa House or Senate rejects the first redistricting plan, or Governor Terry Branstad vetoes it, the Legislative Services Agency has 35 days to submit a second plan to the legislature. “The second plan must be prepared in accordance with the reasons cited, if any, by the Senate or the House by resolution or the Governor by veto message, for the failure to approve the first plan, as long as the reasons do not conflict with any redistricting standard provided by the Code.” No public hearings are required on the second redistricting plan. The Iowa House and Senate must wait at least seven days after it has been submitted to vote on it, and again, no amendments are allowed. Branstad would have to call a special session of the legislature for this, since the Iowa House and Senate are expected to adjourn for the year in early May.

Late summer: If either chamber of the legislature or the governor rejects the second plan, the Legislative Services Agency is required to submit a third map within 35 days of when the second plan was rejected. No public hearings are required. The legislature must wait at least seven days to vote on the third plan, which can be amended like an ordinary bill. However, the Republican-controlled Iowa House and the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate would probably find it difficult to amend the map to a mutually agreeable form.

September: If no consensus is reached on a third map, or Branstad vetoes a map approved by the legislature, the Iowa Supreme Court would take responsibility for drawing a valid map and would have to complete the process by December 31. If the legislature enacts a plan that is successfully challenged in the Iowa Supreme Court, the seven justices would take over the process of drawing a new apportionment plan. They would have 90 days from the date of their ruling striking down the map to complete the process.

The Des Moines rumor mill says politicians in both parties are wary of letting the Iowa Supreme Court draw political lines for the next decade. In all likelihood state legislators and the governor will sign off on either the first or the second map offered by the Legislative Services Agency. UPDATE: Citing unnamed Republican and Democratic insiders, Cityview’s Civic Skinny predicts the first map will be rejected “no matter how fair and how close to perfect it is,” but legislators will “avoid a third map that could conceivably be defeated.”

After the jump I’ve posted details on many events going on around the state this week. Scroll to the bottom to find out where and when the public can comment on the new Iowa map between April 4 and 7.

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

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

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

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

Iowa will soon introduce a season for hunting mourning doves, which had been protected for nearly 100 years as a symbol of peace. Last week, with no debate in the Iowa House or Senate, Senate File 464 passed both chambers easily. Governor Terry Branstad signed the bill into law with the usual photo-op for key backers, but he didn’t seem keen on media attention. The official press release on signing Senate File 464 lacked any quotes about how great the new law will be.

Over the decades, many Iowa lawmakers introduced dove-hunting legislation, and the Republican-controlled House and Senate approved a bill in 2001, but Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed it. Feelings on this issue have never broken down strictly on party lines; Democratic Senator Dick Dearden of Des Moines has been one of the most committed dove-hunting advocates. Senate File 464 passed the Iowa Senate on a bipartisan 30-18 vote; 19 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted yes, while 15 Democrats and three Republicans voted no. The bill cleared the House by 58 to 39; 48 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted yes, while 11 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted no. You can find the Iowa Senate roll call here and the House roll call here.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board argued that legislators should have respected tradition and left the ban in place. In a Mason-Dixon poll of 625 Iowa voters between March 17 and 19, 54 percent of Iowans were against legalizing dove-hunting, while just 25 percent supported it. The Humane Society of the United States commissioned the survey, which found majority opposition in the Republican, Democratic and independent sub-samples.

Although I don’t hunt, I don’t feel more connected to mourning doves than to other wild birds. On the other hand, I believe legislation to expand hunting should have included provisions to protect wildlife from lead poisoning, which is a significant problem in Iowa.

Other news that caught my eye this week:

The Des Moines Register’s chief political reporter since 2002, Tom Beaumont, took a new job as the Des Moines correspondent for Associated Press.

As Des Moines Correspondent, Beaumont will join a political coverage team that includes state government reporter Mike Glover and Iowa City Correspondent Ryan J. Foley. Along with reporters from across the region and the AP’s Washington staff, they will ensure the AP’s report on the caucuses and the 2012 election is consistently first and always complete.

With only nine or ten months remaining before the Iowa caucuses, that’s not a timely departure for the Register.

Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy informed the Board of Regents that he will step down in the summer of 2012. He’s held the job since July 2001. I hope that before he leaves, Geoffroy will do the right thing and help the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture find strong leadership and more independence within the university. His successor won’t want to rile up the corporate interests that helped ISU set fundraising records during the past decade.  

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

UPDATE: Todd Dorman goes over the unusual process through which the dove-hunting bill passed:

Dove hunting did not soar to passage on gossamer wings, folks. It was more like a roach skittering across the kitchen floor in the dark, shielded from scrutiny by quick, deft maneuvers.

The dove bill was off the radar until just before a legislative funnel deadline that exterminates bills that don’t clear a committee. At the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee’s final meeting before the deadline, its chairman, Sen. Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, sprung the bill and pushed it through. The bill was not on the committee’s published agenda. Surprise.

It passed the full Senate. That sent the bill to the House, where, normally, it would go through a House committee before being taken up on the floor. That provides some time for input and deliberation. Lawmakers can even call a public hearing.

Instead, just one day after Senate passage, House Republican leaders called up another Senate bill having to do with raccoon hunting. The House amended the raccoon bill so that it actually became the Senate dove bill. That very unusual bit of procedural crossbreeding allowed the dove bill to skip the House committee process entirely. Soon, the bill flew to Gov. Terry Branstad, who signed it fast and in private.

Legislation aimed at encouraging the expansion of nuclear power in Iowa is “a bad idea that gets worse by the minute,” according to a new report by Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic analysis at the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility commissioned the report, and Cooper summarized its conclusions at a Des Moines press conference today. He analyzed the nuclear industry as a whole and lessons learned from states that have adopted legislation similar to Iowa’s House File 561 and Senate File 390.

Cooper’s report focuses on the immense costs that this legislation would impose on customers of MidAmerican Energy, even if no new nuclear facility is ever built. The average MidAmerican customer may see utility bills go up $50 per month before any nuclear reactor comes online. MidAmerican President Bill Fehrman told Iowa lawmakers yesterday that nuclear power is less expensive than pursuing other methods of generating more electricity, such as solar power and natural gas. Perhaps he was unaware of recent comments by Exelon CEO John Rowe, who runs the largest nuclear plant operator in the U.S. Rowe is convinced that

“At the present time in the United States, new nuclear power reactors are not economical anyway with low load growth and very cheap natural gas. Natural gas generation is now the economic way of choice for low-carbon electricity and that will be true for at least a decade,” he said.

Cooper’s report demonstrates that nuclear power is not competitive with any other major method of producing electricity in terms of cost or efficiency. Massive up-front costs are one reason why nuclear projects in other parts of the U.S. have gone nowhere despite federal loan guarantees (see also here). Building nuclear power plants will only become more expensive in light of the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima facility.

Nuclear power projects also create relatively “few jobs per dollar invested,” “drain resources from household budgets,” “raise the cost of doing business” and primarily benefit foreign equipment vendors. Because the licensing and construction process for nuclear power plants is so slow, Cooper writes, “choosing nuclear reactors over efficiency and renewables not only produces many fewer local jobs in the aggregate, but takes much longer to get those jobs.”

For decades, activists opposed to nuclear power have focused on health and security concerns, such as the lack of appropriate long-term storage for nuclear waste, or the potential for an accident or terrorist attack to release large amounts of radiation. Cooper’s report shows that even if one sets aside all health and environmental concerns, nuclear power is a raw deal for consumers. MidAmerican ratepayers are unlikely ever to break even on this deal. The American Association for Retired Persons has been trying to get legislators to view the proposed bills from this perspective as well.

Governor Terry Branstad’s mind appears to be made up: he supports anything MidAmerican wants to help it build a nuclear power plant, because “we really can’t do it all with renewable.” I reject Branstad’s premise that efficiency measures and renewable energy projects can’t meet Iowa’s baseload electricity needs, but even if that were true, new natural gas-powered plants would be a far better use of resources than nuclear.

House File 561 has already cleared the Iowa House Commerce Committee and probably will pass the House easily. Senate File 390 is still being considered in subcommittee, and nine Democratic senators have urged their colleagues to shelve the proposal. (Cooper notes that other states that were considering similar legislation have put it on hold following the crisis in Japan.) Senate Commerce Committee Chair Swati Dandekar has scheduled a subcommittee meeting on this bill Monday, March 28 from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm in room 116 at the state capitol. Opponents of this bill should contact their representatives and senators, and members of the Senate Commerce Committee in particular.

After the jump I’ve posted today’s release from Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility and several longer excerpts from Cooper’s report on advanced cost recovery for nuclear reactors.

UPDATE: MidAmerican disputes Cooper’s estimates on how much the average ratepayer’s utility bill would go up. I don’t put much stock in estimates from a company whose president claims nuclear power is less expensive than natural gas.

SECOND UPDATE: Paul Deaton of Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility discusses MidAmerican’s shifting cost estimates and argues, “no single document lays out all of the impacts of HF 561 and SF 390 to consumers and that’s the point. The Iowa legislature needs to slow down, get the facts and then make a decision about nuclear power.”

The Board of Regents approved a significant tuition hike yesterday in response to expected reductions in state funding for the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. B.A. Morelli reported for the Iowa City Press-Citizen,

In-state students at UI, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will see a 5 percent increase. But there are additional mandatory fees, and out-of-state students and students in specialized programs, such as business, engineering and nursing, will have increases up to 41.4 percent.

Details and background information are after the jump.

In fewer than three months on the job, Secretary of State Matt Schultz has prompted the president of the Iowa county auditors association to express concern about being “dragged into a partisan fight.” Jennifer Jacobs covered Butler County Auditor Holly Fokkena’s extraordinary comments in Sunday’s Des Moines Register. Not only is Fokkena a Republican like Schultz, she is from a county that tilts strongly to the GOP. Yet she is worried about Schultz’s push to require all voters to show photo ID.

Background and recent developments on the photo ID controversy are after the jump.

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.

Nine Iowa Senate Democrats have signed an open letter asking their colleagues to shelve a pro-nuclear power bill this session and to create a legislative commission “to thoroughly investigate all of the issues including the need for a nuclear power plant, the costs and impact on utility rates, financing and liability issues, safety and waste disposal issues, and renewable energy alternatives.” The senators who signed were Daryl Beall (district 25), Dennis Black (district 21), Joe Bolkcom (district 39), Dick Dearden (district 34), Robert Dvorsky (district 15), Gene Fraise (district 46), Jack Hatch (district 33), Rob Hogg (district 19) and Pam Jochum (district 14). The full text of their letter is after the jump. Excerpt:

Specifically, we have the following concerns:

* There is very little known about how much a new nuclear power plant would cost or how it would

impact utility rates, especially for seniors, working families, and Iowa businesses.

* The proposed technology – small modular reactors – is unproven and has not been approved by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

* There are significant safety and financial liability concerns, especially after the nuclear disaster in Japan. United States Senator Joseph Lieberman has called for “putting the brakes on” the construction of new nuclear power plants “until we can absorb what has happened in Japan.”

* There are potential issues with the creation of a permanent government bureaucracy to permit, monitor, and regulate any new nuclear power plants.

* There are unresolved siting issues about where the plant or plants would be located and how the property would be acquired for the construction of the plants.

MidAmerican Energy is only in the first of what was represented to be a three-year study on the feasibility of constructing a new nuclear power plant in Iowa. When that bill was passed, it was contemplated that Iowa would take at least three years to make any decision about new nuclear power plants. There is no rush.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen predicted the bill will pass this year. Iowa’s only current nuclear power plant is in Paulsen’s district. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal supports the bill.

MidAmerican Energy President William Fehrman is expected to attend an Iowa Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on the bill later today. Fehrman has said the bill would help MidAmerican attract investors for a nuclear construction project. Critics point out that the legislation would lead to higher utility bills for hundreds of thousands of Iowans and would tilt the field so far in favor of expanding nuclear power that less costly energy efficiency and renewable energy projects might not be pursued.

On the other hand, even before this week’s crisis at the Fukushima facility in Japan, financing was not coming together for proposed nuclear power plant projects in the United States. So one could argue that even if this bill becomes law, MidAmerican probably won’t attract the investor support needed to build nuclear plants here. In that case, why let the company charge its Iowa customers more now to pay for anticipated future construction costs?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ranked the 104 nuclear power plants across the country in terms of earthquake risk. Iowa’s Duane Arnold nuclear reactor is 26th on that list. Yesterday several U.S. Senate Democrats urged the head of the NRC to conduct a thorough review of all nuclear reactors in this country, especially those in earthquake-prone areas.

In Germany, political leaders have decided to temporarily shut down seven of the country’s oldest nuclear reactors in order to conduct a safety review. The prime minister of Spain has also called for a review of all that country’s nuclear power plants. A nuclear energy expert whose name I didn’t catch pointed out yesterday on CNN that baseload demand for electricity is relatively low in the spring, so it wouldn’t cause problems on the grid to shut down U.S. nuclear power plants for a month or two during a safety review.

UPDATE: Fehrman told the Iowa Senate subcommittee that “MidAmerican Energy customers would see their power bills rise 10 percent over a decade to pay for the investor-owned utility’s share of a proposed Iowa nuclear plant.” He confirmed that the plant would be completed no sooner than 2020, and that Iowa ratepayers would not get their money back, even if the construction never moved forward.

Sen. Swati Dandekar of Marion said Iowans are concerned about paying for a project that may cost more than the utility thinks, given the nation’s record on cost overruns at nuclear plants.

“There is no doubt there is a history of cost overruns in this industry,” Fehrman said. “We’ve asked for more oversight of this project, and that’s in the bill.”

MidAmerican is pushing legislation that would set some of the rate-making principles to be applied to the plant, in effect telling investors how the utility would recover its expenses.

Also on Thursday, the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club and the American Association of Retired Persons came out against the bill.  From an AARP statement:

“AARP believes it is unfair to consumers and bad policy for the Iowa General Assembly to enact legislation that would allow utility companies to charge consumers in advance for costs of a new plant before it is in service, and require consumers to continue to have to pay even if the plant development is canceled, or goes over budget [….] AARP is concerned about this legislation, not because of the question of nuclear power, but because we oppose raising rates for consumers already struggling to afford their utility bills for a plant yet to be built, where we don’t know the actual cost to build, and may or may not even be built in Iowa.”

Still the self-styled taxpayer watchdog groups are missing in action on this bill.  

Three days into floor discussion of a bill to reduce public employee bargaining rights, Iowa House Republicans voted to cut off debate on House File 525 yesterday. At least 80 percent of more than 100 amendments proposed by House Democrats had not been discussed yet. The House proceeded to reject the remaining Democratic-proposed amendments in a quick series of votes, and the final bill passed 57 to 39. The House Journal (pdf) contains details on yesterday’s debate, including all the roll calls. Most of the votes went along party lines. I was surprised to see one House Republican (Gary Worthan of district 52) vote with the whole Democratic caucus against final passage of the bill. I wonder whether he accidentally pressed the wrong button there, because he voted with the rest of the Republicans on ending debate and lots of amendments.

House Democrats were outraged by the Republican maneuver and the fact that the House switchboard wasn’t working Friday morning (which House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said was an oversight). Jason Clayworth noted at the Des Moines Register, “Limiting debate without the prior agreement to both parties is rare but not unique. Democrats, for example, limited debate in 2009 on another union bill known as prevailing wage that would have setting standards for minimum pay and benefits on government projects.”

Paulsen said the bill “addresses the cost of government in Iowa” by “leveling the playing field for taxpayers.” I am so tired of Republicans scapegoating public employees for our budgetary constraints. Iowa is in better fiscal condition than more than 40 other states. In any event, there is “no correlation between state budget shortfalls and union negotiating laws”:

“The thing that’s driving budget shortfalls is the impact of the national economy on state revenues,” said Elizabeth McNichol of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington, D.C. “It’s definitely other factors driving these shortfalls,” rather than union agreements, she said. […]

Five states – Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – prohibit public employee union negotiations. Each of those states faces budget shortfalls that cumulatively amount to almost $20 billion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the National Council on Teacher Quality say.

Texas, one of the states prohibiting public union negotiations, has one of the largest projected budget shortfalls for next year, figured as a percentage of the current budget.

Iowa is among states with one of the lowest projected shortfalls for next year.

Forty-five states face budget shortfalls for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Of the five states that do not face budget shortfalls, each allows some type of public employee union bargaining.

Iowa’s public employees are paid less than their private sector counterparts when education levels, experience and hours worked are taken into account. Republicans tell us modest raises (about 3 percent per year) for state employees are unaffordable because they would cost $414 million over two years (if non-contract employees get the same pay increases). Yet David Osterberg pointed out this week,

The Iowa House has proposed cutting state income taxes by 20 percent. That would cost $350 million in 2012 and $700 million per year subsequently.

The governor has proposed lowering the top rate on the corporate income tax. That would cost $130 million in 2012 and $200 million per year subsequently.

The Senate and House have proposed adopting “bonus depreciation” rules. These new breaks for business would cost the treasury between $27 million and $83 million in 2011 and $99 million and $141 million in 2012.

While Republicans are selling House File 525 as a way to control government spending, the bill appears to be designed to undermine organized labor. It would shred binding arbitration and create new incentives for state employees not to join a union. In a statement yesterday, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “Like Wisconsin, Republicans in Iowa will stop at nothing to take away rights from police officers, fire fighters, state troopers, teachers, correctional officers and other hard-working Iowans. This bill to end collective bargaining is worse than the bill approved in Wisconsin earlier today.” After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from a House Democratic Research staff analysis on the bill.

Senate Democratic leaders have made clear that House File 525 is going nowhere in the upper chamber this year. If Republicans gain a majority in the Iowa Senate in 2012, they will certainly revive this kind of legislation.

Members of Congress rarely comment on news from the Iowa legislature, but both Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) released statements on yesterday’s Iowa House vote. I’ve posted those after the jump.

MARCH 14 UPDATE: Iowa Senate Labor Committee Chair Wally Horn confirmed that this bill won’t make it out of committee in the upper chamber and is therefore dead for the 2011 legislative session.

Members of the Iowa House Republican leadership team forgot that simple rule yesterday.

The video and transcript are after the jump.

Approximately 7,000 Iowans who have been out of work for at least a year have lost their chance to receive an extra 13 weeks of unemployment benefits at the federal government’s expense. The 2009 stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) included a provision “to fund the entire cost of extended unemployment benefits through the end of 2011, rather than requiring states to pay half of the cost.” States with unemployment rates of at least 6.5 percent could qualify for 13 weeks of extended benefits, and states with unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent could qualify for 20 weeks of extended benefits.

Iowa was among nine states that did not pass enabling legislation (a “Total Unemployment Rate trigger”) to take advantage of that portion of the stimulus. Democrats in the Iowa Senate recently approved a bill on a mostly party-line vote and urged the Iowa House to act by March 10. New employment figures to be released on that date were expected to bring Iowa’s three-month average unemployment below the threshold for qualifying for the federal stimulus program. Indeed, Iowa Workforce Development confirmed that the state’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.1 percent in January, bringing the three-month average rate down to 6.1 percent.

Governor Terry Branstad didn’t advocate for the enabling legislation, and House Republican leaders decided not to move the bill:

“[T]he House Republican caucus is not interested in making it harder to be an employer in the state of Iowa,” said House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha. “What’s going on with unemployment compensation right now is making it harder to be an employer.”

I believe Republicans misunderstood the essence of this program. As the National Employment Law Project explained in a February report, the stimulus act included full federal funding for these extended benefits. Note: that report estimated that about 29,000 Iowans could potentially receive the 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. Iowa Senate Democrats estimated that about 7,000 would qualify. That’s a relatively small percentage of the 102,000 unemployed Iowans, but roughly $14.5 million in benefits divided among 7,000 people would have meant a lot of extra disposable income in communities with high jobless rates.

It’s lamentable that Republicans declined to act on behalf of Iowa’s long-term unemployed. In addition to helping jobless individuals, unemployment benefits have a powerful multiplier effect in local economies, because the people who receive them tend to spend the money quickly on goods and services they could not otherwise afford.

Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate share the blame for not passing the Total Unemployment Rate trigger during the 2010 legislative session. When the stimulus went into effect in 2009, Iowa’s unemployment rate was too low to qualify for that money (though state officials did secure unemployment benefits through a different part of the stimulus). But in early 2010, Iowa’s unemployment rate exceeded 6.5 percent. If the Iowa House and Senate had passed enabling legislation, Governor Chet Culver surely would have signed it, and some jobless Iowans would already have received the extra federal funding.

The Iowa House settled in Wednesday for a long floor debate on the labor bill formerly known as House Study Bill 117, now House File 525 (full text). This bill would sharply restrict collective bargaining rights and end binding arbitration for public employee unions. When the Iowa House Labor Committee considered this bill, Democrats kept lawmakers in session all night, offering dozens of amendments. House Democrats have proposed at least 100 amendments for consideration on the floor, and many legislators are speaking about each one. About six hours into the debate, fewer than ten amendments have been considered. It’s not clear whether the chamber will adjourn later tonight, but even if House members pull another all-nighter, this debate could take days. With a 60-40 majority, Republicans have the votes to pass House File 525 eventually, but it could be an exhausting experience. Senate Democratic leaders have vowed to block the bill in the upper chamber.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad traveled the state today pushing his message about how Iowa can’t afford to give public employees raises during the next two fiscal years. Statehouse Democrats say that Iowa can afford the new union contracts negotiated by former Governor Chet Culver, if Republicans give up their planned corporate and higher-income tax cuts.

Labor issues were contentious even when Democrats had the trifecta in Iowa. Culver’s 2008 veto of a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights caused a lasting rift between him and the state’s labor movement. The following year, six House Democrats stood with Republicans to block a prevailing wage bill, undermining the credibility of the majority leaders. Another Democrat’s opposition to “fair share” legislation prompted an unsuccessful primary challenge in 2010. Now that the political battle in Iowa has shifted to defending rather than expanding labor rights, the Democratic House caucus is more united.

Today’s unusual circumstances in the Iowa House  are nothing compared to the circus unfolding in Wisconsin. Senate Democrats left the state three weeks ago to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass an even more restrictive collective bargaining bill. Republicans moved to end the standoff today by supposedly removing the fiscal portions of the labor bill, making it no longer subject to the Wisconsin Senate quorum rules. The chamber then convened and passed the bill in about five minutes with no debate or amendments and only one dissenting vote. However, Democrats claim not all parts of the bill affecting the budget were removed before today’s power play; this pdf file is the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s analysis of the revised bill. There will surely be a legal challenge to passing the bill without a quorum, and some union representatives in Wisconsin are even talking about organizing a general strike.

Any comments about political battles over labor issues are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: The Iowa House adjourned Wednesday night after eight hours of debate on House File 525. The discussion resumes on Thursday; here’s a link to live video.

Senator Tom Harkin issued this statement on the Wisconsin events:

“I am appalled by the actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin.  They trampled over the democratic process, ramming through legislation taking away a fundamental right of Wisconsin’s public servants – the right to organize.  The law has nothing to do with budgets.  It is blatant political scapegoating, and it is shameful.  Our elected leaders at every level of government should be focused on helping working families succeed, not tearing them down.”

A public hearing on the collective bargaining bill under consideration in the Iowa House is likely to be one of the main political events of the week, but there’s much more going on around the state as well. Details are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

The first all-nighter of the 2011 legislative session ended this morning around 6:05 am, as the Iowa House Labor Committee approved a bill restricting public employees’ collective bargaining rights on a party-line vote.

Details on the bill, the debate, and the fight to come are after the jump.

House File 45 heads to Governor Terry Branstad’s desk today after the Iowa House approved the “deappropriations” bill by a 95 to zero vote. The bill was the top legislative priority for House Republican leaders, but the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate eliminated many of its controversial provisions last week. The full text of House File 45 is here, and the complete bill history is here. The Senate Journal for February 17 contains roll calls for votes on House File 45 and various amendments (pdf file). The final Senate version of House File 45 passed with 48 yes votes. First-term Republican Senator Mark Chelgren voted against the bill, and Republican Senator Sandy Greiner was absent.

Thanks to the Senate amendment, state funding for preschool, family planning, passenger rail, smoking cessation programs, and the core curriculum live to fight another day in the Iowa legislature. So do the Power Fund, the Office of Energy Independence, and the Grow Iowa Values Fund, all economic development programs long targeted by statehouse Republicans.

In addition, the Senate removed language from House File 45 that would have reduced funding for state universities, area education agencies, land acquisitions by the Department of Natural Resources and the Resource Enhancement and Protection fund.

The Senate’s version of House File 45 also did not include language creating a “tax relief fund” that would have collected surplus revenues after state reserve funds were filled.

After the jump I’ve posted an overview compiled by the Iowa House Democratic research staff on “major items eliminated” by the Senate amendment to House File 45. I’ve also listed some other significant points of divergence between the Senate and House versions of this bill, as well as key points on which the Senate left House File 45’s language intact.

Finally, I’ve posted the House Democratic research staff’s explanation of language that would create searchable databases on the state budget and tax rates.  

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

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

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

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

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

Civic Skinny’s latest column at the Des Moines weekly Cityview leads with a warning for Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley. Citing “top people in both parties,” Skinny speculates that “powerful party forces – and that’s code for Ed Failor Jr.’s Iowans for Tax Relief” want to replace McKinley with “one of their own – and that probably means Bill Dix […]”

Follow me after the jump for Skinny’s case as well as some additional supporting evidence and background on Dix, Iowans for Tax Relief, and longstanding Republican discontent with McKinley.

Excerpt from the post.culture.shock blog

When I was in middle school, I earned spare money by babysitting for a lot of the neighborhood kids. One of the parents I was employed by was Kim Pearson, one of the sponsors of the bill in the Iowa House to amend the Constitution to ban not only gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is my letter to her. (edited somewhat with the recognition that this is now going to a lot of folks who don’t know me as well as Kim did, and who likely don’t care what I’ve been up to since I spent a summer taking care of her kids)

Proud to be an Iowan. Period. Thanks Zach.

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.

Governor Terry Branstad presents his draft budget to members of the Iowa House and Senate this morning. His staff have indicated he will outline about $700 million in budget cuts, including layoffs of hundreds of workers. Branstad and Republican legislators say Iowa needs to reduce spending by $700 million to make up for the projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012, which begins on July 1.

The facts tell a different story: Iowa has a projected gap of around $263 million for the coming fiscal year. That figure was the Legislative Services Agency’s best guess as of December 2010, but it probably overstates the gap. Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, which means higher-income Iowans will not be forced to pay more federal taxes and therefore will not have more to deduct from their state tax returns. With the Bush tax cuts in place, Iowa can expect to collect about $140 million more in state tax receipts for the 2012 fiscal year. That would be enough to cover the estimated cost of the new AFSCME contract Branstad has declared unaffordable.

The $700 million figure Branstad uses assumes Iowa will use more than $300 million from the current-year budget surplus to pay for corporate and other tax cuts. He also wants to reduce commercial property taxes, which will cost the state more money to reimburse local governments. Those are Branstad’s preferences, not policies state government is obliged to implement. It’s not that Iowa can’t afford to continue the preschool program that costs about $70 million per year, or can’t afford any allowable growth in K-12 education budgets. Republicans simply want to do other things with the public’s money.

I am curious to hear what Branstad says about transportation funding today, since he came out this week against passenger rail subsidies but for a future gas tax hike to build more roads. I also wonder whether he will propose any specific reform to tax-increment financing in Iowa. TIF was originally intended to spur redevelopment in “slum and blighted” urban areas but has become increasingly costly for state government and has created inequities in commercial property taxes.

I’ll update this post with details from Branstad’s speech and political reaction after the jump. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

UPDATE: IowaPolitics.com posted the prepared text of Branstad’s speech. Big surprise: he’s not planning to eliminate appropriations for preschool, just to reduce them to $43 million per year. Further thoughts are below.

FRIDAY UPDATE: At the end of this post I’ve added Senator Rob Hogg’s assessment of Branstad’s draft budget. He notes that zero percent allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years is “unprecedented in the history of Iowa’s school financing formula which was created in 1973.”

Lack of funding for various flood mitigation and watershed management programs also concerns Hogg, a Democrat representing Cedar Rapids and a leading advocate of improved flood prevention efforts in Iowa.

Iowa Republicans vowed late last year to pass new abortion restrictions modeled on a Nebraska statute which in effect bans the procedure after the 20th week of gestation. Abortions are already illegal in Iowa after the sixth month of pregnancy except if a doctor believes the procedure could “preserve the life or health” of the pregnant woman. The new bill, House File 5, asserts that an “unborn child” can experience pain after the 20th week of gestation and bans abortions after that time unless “The pregnant woman has a condition which the physician deems a medical emergency” or “It is necessary to preserve the life of the unborn child.”

Very few abortions are performed in Iowa after the 20th week of pregnancy. In 2006 just nine out of more than 6,700 abortions occurred at the 21th week of gestation or later. Of the 5,829 abortions performed in Iowa in 2009, only six were induced after the 20th week. However, Republicans want to prevent Dr. LeRoy Carhart from opening a clinic in Council Bluffs to serve women seeking abortions after 20 weeks. Carhart had worked with Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas for more than a decade but moved to Omaha after Tiller’s assassination in 2009. The new Nebraska law prompted Carhart to close his Omaha clinic. Last month he began working at a Maryland clinic.

Iowa House Republican leaders have expressed confidence about passing new abortion restrictions. They have a 60 to 40 majority with no pro-choice members of their caucus. I believe this legislation could pass the Iowa Senate, because unlike the 1980s and 1990s, there are no longer any pro-choice Republicans to cancel out the votes of Democrats supporting more restrictions on reproductive rights. Governor Terry Branstad would be eager to sign any anti-choice bill.

However, Craig Robinson reported yesterday that House File 5 lacks the votes to clear the Iowa House Human Resources Committee. Two of the most conservative first-term GOP legislators, Kim Pearson and Glen Massie, serve on that committee and oppose the bill, presumably because it would not go far enough to restrict abortions. Without their support, Republicans can count on only 10 votes in the 21-member committee. According to Robinson, Iowa Right to Life, the Iowa Catholic Conference, and the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition all support House File 5. But the FAMiLY LEADER organization led by Bob Vander Plaats and others from the Iowa Family Policy Center oppose the bill.

Pearson and Massie will face tremendous pressure to change their position. I wouldn’t be surprised if they vote for House File 5 after all. But if they resist carrots or sticks Republican leaders wave at them, the bill could be dead for the 2011 session.

Speaking of reproductive rights, no one in the House Republican caucus seems to realize that the family planning spending cuts in House File 45, which passed the chamber on January 19, would likely increase the number of early abortions performed in Iowa. It’s sadly typical for anti-choice politicians to oppose effective means to prevent unintended pregnancies.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth posted a good rundown on the GOP split over this bill.

The preschool program will be at the center of Democratic opposition to a “deappropriations” bill the Iowa House Appropriations Committee approved this week. Republicans say House Study Bill 1, which has been renamed House File 45, would save $500 million over three years. Nearly a third of that total would come from eliminating the statewide voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds (estimated to cost $69.9 million in fiscal year 2012 and $75.1 million in fiscal year 2013). Click here for a summary listing the budget cuts and supplemental appropriations in House File 45.

On January 13, House Democrats launched a website to help mobilize Iowans who value the long-term benefits of preschool. Ending the program could affect 20,000 children across the state. This chart (pdf file) shows the preschool enrollment for four-year-olds and cost to the state for each school district. For instance, in the Des Moines area there are 1,335 children enrolled in the preschool program through the Des Moines Community Schools, 235 in the West Des Moines school district, 208 in Johnston, 207 in Southeast Polk, 163 in Norwalk, 147 in Urbandale, and 122 in Ankeny. In the Cedar Rapids area, 473 children are enrolled in preschool through the Cedar Rapids school district and 175 in Linn-Mar.

A public hearing on House File 45 will take place Tuesday, January 18 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the House chambers at the capitol. Only 40 people will be allowed to speak, but any Iowan can send written comments on the bill to lioinfo AT legis.state.ia.us, with “testimony” in the e-mail subject line. House Democrats are also asking members of the public to post comments at the Save Preschool site.

Statehouse Republicans and incoming Governor Terry Branstad want to replace the preschool program with a voucher system geared to low-income families. However, many middle-income families in Iowa are also unable to afford preschool, which can easily cost $700 to $800 per month. If state assistance for middle-class families disappears, many preschools could close for lack of students.

It’s unfortunate that preschool became a partisan issue in Iowa. A Pew Center on the States report published last month found, “Despite persistent budget shortfalls, the majority of state legislatures have once again made the prudent decision to protect pre-k programs.” In addition, more than a dozen states “with control of the executive and legislative branches split between the two major parties” nevertheless “protected their pre-k investments from budget cuts.”