Yesterday Planned Parenthood of the Heartland asked the Iowa Supreme Court to put on hold a state rule banning the use of “telemedicine” for medical abortions. A Polk County District Court recently upheld that rule, on grounds Bleeding Heartland discussed here. Planned Parenthood argues that it is likely to succeed on the merits when the Iowa Supreme Court considers its appeal of the lower court ruling, that the state ban would “irreparably harm” Planned Parenthood and its patients, and that a temporary injunction on the rule while the appeal is pending “will not harm the interests of the other parties or the public.” A stay on the rule would allow women to continue to receive medical abortion access at seven Planned Parenthood clinics across Iowa where the teleconferencing system is available.

The Des Moines Register posted the full text of Planned Parenthood’s motion filed yesterday. After the jump I’ve posted key excerpts, which preview the substance of Planned Parenthood’s appeal.

I’m not an attorney, but my hunch is that the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn the lower court ruling–perhaps with two or three dissenters who would defer to the Board of Medicine, along the lines of the dissents in a recent case involving the Iowa Utilities Board.

To my mind, Planned Parenthood’s strongest argument is that the Iowa Board of Medicine approved a rule that “singles out abortion, banning telemedicine delivery of this service while encouraging other uses of telemedicine.” A Des Moines Register editorial published earlier this week underscored the hypocrisy of that position. I’ve enclosed excerpts from that piece at the end of this post. Governor Terry Branstad and others in his administration have celebrated the use of telemedicine in many ways that involve doctors or pharmacists dispensing medications without ever being in the same room as their patients.

A Polk County District Court today upheld a rule adopted by the Iowa Board of Medicine last year, which would prohibit Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from providing medical abortions using “telemedicine” (where a doctor meets with the patient via videoconferencing). You can read the full text of Judge Jeffrey Farrell’s ruling here. After the jump I’ve summarized Judge Farrell’s key findings, including background on the case and excerpts from his decision. I’ve also enclosed reaction from both sides in the telemedicine abortion debate, as well as from Governor Terry Branstad and Democratic challenger Jack Hatch.

Judge Farrell’s ruling goes into effect in 30 days, but Planned Parenthood has already said it will appeal, so the Iowa Supreme Court may put another stay on the rule pending its hearing of the case.

I’m surprised by this ruling. In a November 2013 decision granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a stay of the rule, Polk County District Court Judge Karen Romano sounded skeptical that rule would be upheld when courts considered the merits. She noted the lack of evidence of any adverse outcomes in more than 5,000 abortions using Planned Parenthood’s telemedicine system, the “peculiar” fact that the Board of Medicine required an in-person meeting between a patient and doctor for abortion services, but not for other telemedicine practices, and the likelihood that denying rural women access to medical abortion would increase demand for “surgical abortion, which is much more invasive and risky.” UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland reader ahawby notes several factors that could have influenced Judge Farrell’s perspective on this case.

Today’s decision is a victory for opponents of abortion rights, because Iowa women in small towns and rural areas will face more hurdles to obtain abortions early in pregnancy. It’s also a personal triumph for Branstad’s legal counsel, Brenna Findley. As Judge Farrell’s ruling acknowledges, Findley was a vocal advocate of the rulemaking, urging the Board of Medicine to act quickly on the petition from pro-life activists, against the advice of the board’s own legal counsel as well as the Iowa Attorney General’s office.

Being charged with a crime is rarely good news for any public figure, but it looks like Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the exception that proves the rule.

Not only will his presidential aspirations survive the criminal case launched against him last last week, the governor’s prosecution will improve his standing among Iowa Republicans, for three reasons.

Speaking to a small crowd at the Iowa State Fair yesterday, Governor Terry Branstad said he was “proud as governor to have stood up for and fought for the interests of agriculture.” You can watch the video on the Des Moines Register’s website and read highlights in O.Kay Henderson’s report for Radio Iowa or Jason Noble’s summary for the Register:

He described his defense of Beef Products Inc. and its lean finely textured beef against charges that it was unhealthy “pink slime”; his support for wind energy; his efforts to maintain the current renewable fuel standard for ethanol content in gasoline; and his opposition to California chicken cage standards that could harm Iowa egg producers.

Branstad certainly was a vocal advocate for “pink slime,” even depicting the product as some kind of superior health food. He’s eager to defend one company’s use of methods many consumers find repulsive, but I doubt the Terrace Hill chef is serving him many meals containing lean finely-textured beef.

Renewable energy advocates in Iowa would not characterize Branstad as a champion for wind. I’ve never heard of him lifting a finger to support “distributed generation” policies, which would benefit a much broader group of farmers and landowners than the large wind farms now dotting rural Iowa.

True, the governor has argued strenuously for maintaining the Renewable Fuels Standard, contradicting his usual stance against “big government regulations” and federal mandates. However, it’s debatable whether the RFS is as important to Iowa’s economy as some interest groups claim.

Branstad can pander all he wants about “the State of California with its wacky ideas,” but the lawsuit he joined on behalf of Iowa is lacking in logic and unlikely to overturn California’s egg law. It’s also ironic that a governor who claims to oppose “activist judges” is pinning his hopes on them in this case and in another lawsuit challenging a different California law.

Meanwhile, Branstad has either done nothing or actively impeded solutions on several issues that pose an enormous threat to Iowa agriculture. We’re losing world-class topsoil at an alarming rate, diminishing the future productivity of our land. Yet Branstad vetoed millions of dollars this year for Iowa watershed and land stewardship projects. Nor has he ever proposed funding the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which Iowa voters approved four years ago.

“Superweeds” resistant to the most prevalent herbicides are spreading across Iowa. Branstad has never advocated for or promoted more sustainable farming methods, which could address the weed problem more effectively than dumping more toxic chemicals on the land. Incidentally, Big Ag’s preferred approach to battling superweeds could could put a lot of Iowa vineyards and fruit growers out of business–never mind the potential risks to human health.

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

Late last week, a Virginia medical examiner determined that James Brady’s recent death was a homicide, stemming from John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. I would be interested to hear from readers more familiar with the criminal justice system about precedent for charging someone with murder when more than three decades elapsed between the fatal wound and the victim’s death. The U.S. Attorney’s office had no comment other than to say that they are reviewing the coroner’s report. If prosecutors charge Hinckley with murder, they could get around double jeopardy questions, as Hinckley was never tried for murder before. But since his previous trial ended in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, it seems that it would be quite difficult for prosecutors to convince a jury that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing Brady.

In one of the last decisions announced from the term that just ended, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled a few weeks ago in State v Lyle that mandatory sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional. You can read the majority ruling and two dissents here. The majority ruling built on but went far beyond a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated mandatory sentences of life without parole for convicted killers who were juveniles at the time of the crime. Writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Mark Cady extended reasoning from three Iowa Supreme Court decisions last year related to juvenile sentencing. Cady is not afraid to be ahead of the curve here. I expect that over the next decade, other courts will take into account the growing body of research on the adolescent brain, and this ruling will be viewed as a harbinger rather than an overreach. Justices David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht, and Brent Appel joined the majority.

In dissent, Justices Thomas Waterman and Bruce Zager argued that the court went too far in the current ruling as well as in the previous juvenile sentencing cases. They held that a seven-year mandatory minimum was not “cruel and unusual punishment” for a violent criminal who happened to be 17 years old at the time of the crime. Justice Edward Mansfield joined both dissents. It’s worth noting that the majority opinion didn’t say a juvenile couldn’t be sentenced to a long prison term–only that a judge must take into account individual circumstances and current knowledge of adolescent brain development when determining a sentence.

Side note: Governor Terry Branstad appeared not to understand this Iowa Supreme Court ruling, or perhaps he deliberately attempted to mislead the public about its implications. Speaking to reporters last month, the governor implied that juveniles who commit violent crimes will now have to be released at age 18. Not at all. The Iowa Supreme Court majority did not hold that juveniles could never be tried as adults, or that juveniles could not be sentenced to long prison terms. Judges simply can’t apply to juveniles mandatory formulas designed for adults who committed violent crimes.

Earlier this summer, I never managed to write a post about the idiot “open carry activists” who were hell-bent on walking into chain stores and restaurants heavily armed. Even the National Rifle Association characterized the movement as having “crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness”–though the NRA wimps soon apologized for offending Open Carry Texas. Thankfully, I haven’t encountered this phenomenon in Iowa, but if I see a person or group of people walking heavily armed into a store or restaurant, I will clear out immediately. There’s no way to tell whether someone carrying a semiautomatic weapon is an open carry activist or a psychopath about to go on a killing spree, and I wouldn’t hang around to find out. This philosophy professor had it exactly right when he pointed out that open carry enthusiasts are different from people who carry concealed weapons: “Those who conceal their guns are ready for trouble, but open-carry activists are looking for it. In general, I don’t trust anyone who is looking for trouble.”

Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey submitted his resignation to Governor Terry Branstad yesterday in order to become chief judge of the Employee’s Compensation Appeal Board in Washington, D.C. later this month. I haven’t seen any official reaction from the Branstad administration. The governor has been trying to get rid of Godfrey since late 2010, even though the Iowa Senate had unanimously confirmed him to a fixed term as Workers’ Compensation Commissioner until 2015. During the summer of 2011, Branstad docked Godfrey’s pay after sending his chief of staff and legal counsel to demand his resignation one more time. The governor couldn’t articulate any reason for being dissatisfied with Godfrey, other than saying, “business groups in Iowa […] told me in no uncertain terms that they were not happy with the direction under Mr. Godfrey.” Branstad staffers publicly criticized Godfrey’s work, which along with the pay reduction and pressure to resign led to a defamation and discrimination lawsuit against the state of Iowa and six senior officials, including Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds.

Last month, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that Godfrey can sue individual officials as well as the State of Iowa for defamation, extortion and other claims. Yesterday, Godfrey’s attorney Roxanne Conlin confirmed that the lawsuit will move forward. I’ve posted her comments below, along with reaction from Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jack Hatch. Polk County District Court Judge Arthur Gamble told attorneys last week that a firm trial date will be set for sometime in 2015. Depositions are only just beginning in a case that has already cost the state of Iowa more than $500,000 in legal fees.

If Godfrey weren’t doing his job well, he would not have been offered a more senior and prestigious position in the same line of work. I don’t know whether Branstad wanted to get rid of him because Godfrey is openly gay, as the lawsuit alleges, or because the governor was taking marching orders from business groups. Either way, the governor never should have bullied and badgered this highly capable person, and the state should have settled this lawsuit a long time ago.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- Has any Iowa governor ever hired a worse legal counsel than Brenna Findley? She’s supposed to steer her boss away from legal problems, not provide fodder for a lawsuit. Nor is this case her only misstep. Last summer, Findley contradicted legal advice from the Iowa Attorney General’s office and the attorney for the Iowa Board of Medicine, encouraging that board to move forward with abortion restrictions that have been temporarily blocked and will probably be struck down in a separate lawsuit.

UPDATE: Todd Dorman hits on the most disturbing aspect of this “saga”: “Truth is, governors have the power to make dozens and dozens of powerful appointments. The fact that Branstad would go to these lengths to get his hands on one job that eluded his grasp tells you quite a bit about how he views the limits of executive power. After nearly 20 years, he doesn’t see any.”

Cedar Rapids movers and shakers should be pursuing alternative plans for a prime downtown location rejected for a casino license in April. Instead, city leaders have vowed to find a legislative path to their casino dream. Now a former Linn County attorney hopes a court will throw out the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission’s decision. Rick Smith reports for the Cedar Rapids Gazette,

[Eugene] Kopecky filed a lawsuit this week in Linn County District Court against the commission and the four of five commission members who voted April 17 to deny a state gaming license to casino investor group Cedar Rapids Development Group LLC.

Kopecky, who has practiced law in Cedar Rapids since 1966, said Thursday that his lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment. He said he wants the court to instruct the commission on the state’s gaming law in a way that would require the commission to revisit the Cedar Rapids casino application and grant a state gaming license.

Kopecky said the state’s gaming law requires voters in a county to approve gaming before a casino is permitted to operate. […]

He said state law doesn’t give the state commission the ability to deny a casino license in one county based on a license in another county, he said.

The fact that voters must approve a plan before a casino can be licensed does not imply that the commission must approve every application for a casino license where a referendum has passed. The Racing and Gaming Commission has denied some two dozen gambling licenses in its 30-year history. There is ample precedent for the commission denying a license based on concerns a new casino would largely cannibalize from existing ones. I’ve seen no evidence that state legislators thought commissioners were exceeding their authority in those cases. I’m not an attorney, but I would be shocked if a court agreed with Kopecky’s interpretation of Iowa statute.

Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett commented yesterday that he supports the lawsuit. For his part, Kopecky “said his lawsuit could take more than two years to make its way through the Iowa court system if a decision in Linn County District Court is appealed.”

What a shame to waste so much time on a Hail-Mary pass, when Cedar Rapids could be considering other development plans for the downtown space. Richard Florida, a leading expert on urban land use, has written that “urbanists across the ideological spectrum are unanimous” about one thing: “building casinos, especially in an already thriving downtown, is a truly terrible idea.”  

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday affirmed a lower court ruling that will make it easier for small-scale solar projects to move forward in Iowa. The up-front cost of installing solar panels has long been a barrier to unlocking Iowa’s huge potential to generate solar power. Now municipalities, home or business owners will be able to have solar panels installed through a “third-party power purchase agreement,” whereby they pay for the electricity generated after installation.

Follow me after the jump for background on this case, key points from the majority ruling, and reaction to the decision. Advocates for solar power in Iowa and elsewhere are enthusiastic about the potential for more small-scale renewable energy projects (sometimes called “distributed generation”). Utility companies are warning that the ruling will drive up electricity costs.  

In a 4-3 split decision, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed today a Polk County District Court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit seeking to nullify new state water quality rules.

The environmental community and groups representing big agribusiness have closely watched this case for years, because the “antidegradation” rules are an important step toward bringing Iowa into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Had this lawsuit succeeded, no strong water quality rules would have seen the light of day for the forseeable future in Iowa, because Governor Terry Branstad has packed the State Environmental Protection Commission with advocates for agribusiness.

Follow me after the jump for more background on the case and details about today’s decision.

UPDATE: Added reaction from the Iowa Farm Bureau and the Iowa Environmental Council below. If there’s a more hypocritical statewide organization than the Farm Bureau, I can’t think what it could be.

While checking for new Iowa Supreme Court rulings, I saw on the court’s official website that July 4 marked an important anniversary in Iowa judicial history. On that date in 1839, the territorial high court handed down its first ruling, which is still one of its most noteworthy opinions. “In the Matter of Ralph,” the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a slave-owner from Missouri could not enforce a contract that would have required his former slave Ralph to return from Iowa to servitude. Writing for the court, Chief Justice Charles Mason acknowledged Ralph’s monetary debt but held that “no man in this territory can be reduced to slavery”

and that Montgomery had lost his right over Ralph in Iowa. The justices wrote, “When, in seeking to accomplish his object, he illegally restrains a human being of his liberty, it is proper that the laws, which should extend equal protection to men of all colors and conditions, should exert their remedial interposition. We think, therefore, that [Ralph] should be discharged from all custody and constraint, and be permitted to go free while he remains under the protection of our laws.”

The Iowa Supreme Court’s current Chief Justice Mark Cady has hailed the importance of that ruling, which “declared equality for all people, regardless of skin color, in a very powerful way.”

Amazingly, just 53 years ago today, civil rights activist John Lewis (now a member of Congress from Georgia) was released from prison after being jailed for more than a month. His “crime” had been to use a “white” restroom in the state of Mississippi.  

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today in favor of Hobby Lobby’s right not to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance package for employees. The Obama administration had already exempted some religious organizations and non-profits from the contraception mandate in the 2010 health care reform law. Today’s ruling allows a closely-held (that is, not publicly traded) for-profit corporation to claim religious rights that override the rights of their employees, not to mention the need to comply with federal law.

You can read the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision and dissents here (pdf). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the “opinion of the court,” joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. Strangely, Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion “in an attempt to show how narrow the Court’s decision was.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented. The majority ruling appears to apply only to contraception health care services, as opposed to other medical procedures to which some groups have religious objections (such as vaccinations or blood transfusions). Still, Ginsburg seems on track when she warns that the court “has ventured into a minefield” by “approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation.” Analyzing today’s decision, Lyle Denniston predicted more litigation will be needed to clarify the limits of the new religious exemption for closely-held companies.

For background on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case (formerly Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius) and the implications of the ruling, check the Alliance for Justice and SCOTUSblog websites.

After the jump I’ve posted comments from various Iowa elected officials and candidates. So far Iowa Democrats have been quicker to respond to the Hobby Lobby ruling than Republicans. I will update this post as needed.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution by making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012, when the U.S. Senate was technically in session. The Congressional Research Service produced an excellent backgrounder on the legal issues surrounding that set of appointments. You can find today’s opinions here (pdf). Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, “For purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.” The Obama administration had argued that the Senate was for all practical purposes in recess on January 4, 2012, since no real business is conducted during pro-forma sessions a few minutes long every three days. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the majority opinion.

Today’s ruling is less far-reaching than it could have been; Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion concurring in judgment only would have much more severely restricted presidential powers to make recess appointments. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined that opinion.

Since the Senate changed its rules last year to make it much more difficult for the minority to block presidential appointees, Obama has less reason to resort to recess appointments. But that could change if Republicans gain a Senate majority after this November’s elections.

Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley hailed today’s ruling in a Senate floor speech that I’ve posted below. I haven’t seen any official comment from Senator Tom Harkin. He is among those who supported the president’s recess appointments, citing “unprecedented abuses of process” by Senate Republicans who sought to prevent the National Labor Relations Board from operating by refusing to confirm any nominee.

UPDATE: Added a few points Lyle Denniston raised below.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Missouri law establishing a 300-foot buffer zone around funerals, and has upheld some state laws creating buffer zones around abortion clinics. But today, all nine justices found that a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. You can find the full texts of the majority opinion and two concurrences in McCullen et al v Coakley here (pdf).

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. The ruling found that although the Massachusetts law was not attempting to regulate speech based on content, “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted inter­ests,” which “include ensuring public safety outside abortion clinics, preventing harassment and intimidation of patients and clinic staff, and combating deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances.”

There is a long history of intimidating and sometimes violent protests outside Massachusetts abortion clinics. But the majority rejected state officials’ contention that the 2007 law was needed because a previous, less restrictive buffer zone law had not worked. The court argued that a more narrowly-tailored approach, stepping up law enforcement around the Boston clinic with the most problems, could achieve the same end without restricting protesters’ free speech in public areas.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, concurring in judgment only. He would have thrown out the law because it regulates speech in a “content-based” manner and can’t survive the “strict scrutiny” standard which “requires that a regulation represent “the least restrictive means” of furthering “a compelling Gov­ernment interest.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion concurring in judgment. He would throw out the state law because it “discriminates based on viewpoint. Speech in favor of the clinic and its work by employees and agents is permitted; speech criticizing the clinic and its work is a crime.”  

In what may become one of this year’s most far-reaching court rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a right to privacy applies to cell phones, and that law enforcement cannot inspect the contents of cell phones without a search warrant. Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the high court’s five conservatives, wrote the opinion, which you can read in full here. Good summaries include David Savage’s report for the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak’s report for the New York Times, and this SCOTUSblog analysis by Lyle Denniston:

The Court rejected every argument made to it by prosecutors and police that officers should be free to inspect the contents of any cellphone taken from an arrestee.  It left open just one option for such searches without a court order:  if police are facing a dire emergency, such as trying to locate a missing child or heading off a terrorist plot.  But even then, it ruled, those “exigent” exceptions to the requirement for a search warrant would have to satisfy a judge after the fact.

The ruling was such a sweeping embrace of digital privacy that it even reached remotely stored private information that can be reached by a hand-held device – as in the modern-day data storage “cloud.”  And it implied that the tracking data that a cellphone may contain about the places that an individual visited also is entitled to the same shield of privacy.

I’m not surprised by the decision, but I’m surprised it was unanimous. It’s a very strong statement that police need to change their standard practices after arresting suspects will have to change.

Two federal judges in Iowa plan to retire next year, and U.S. Senator Tom Harkin has recommended that President Barack Obama choose among three possible replacements. Cedar Rapids-based attorney Dave O’Brien is Harkin’s choice to replace U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett, who presides in Sioux City. O’Brien finished fifth in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s first Congressional district. I’ve posted background on his legal credentials after the jump.

Harkin suggested two possible nominees for the position to be vacated by James Gritzner, chief district judge for Iowa’s Southern District: Polk County District Court Judge Karen Romano and Nick Klinefeldt, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. A former prosecutor in Polk County, Romano became an Iowa District Associate judge in 1996 and a District Court judge in 2001. She has been on Harkin’s short list before, and I’ve posted more background on her after the jump.

I hope Obama chooses Romano to fill this vacancy, as she has much more relevant experience than Klinefeldt. On Harkin’s recommendation, Obama appointed Klinefeldt to be U.S. attorney in 2009. The Senate confirmed him to that position about four and a half years ago. His official bio is below as well.

Romano was in the news last November after her ruling put a temporary stay on the Iowa Board of Medicine’s rule banning the use of telemedicine to provide abortion drugs to Iowa women. Social conservatives including Bob Vander Plaats’ FAMiLY Leader organization threw a fit, but I have little doubt that the state board’s rule will not stand up in court when Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is heard on the merits.

Ryan Foley of the Associated Press observed, “It is unusual for Iowa, a state that only has five active district judges, to have two pending vacancies for the lifetime judicial positions at the same time.”

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that a District Court should hear a lawsuit eight Muscatine residents have filed against the Grain Processing Corporation. Muscatine locals have long had to breathe some of Iowa’s dirtiest air, and the Grain Processing Corporation has long been one of the area’s major polluters. Despite being forced to pay a $538,000 civil penalty for air pollution violations eight years ago, the corporation continued to emit excessive amounts, leading to a lawsuit by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller in 2011. Earlier this year, the company settled that lawsuit, agreeing to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty and to take several steps to reduce toxic emissions from the facility.

But the Grain Processing Corporation stood and fought when local residents filed a class-action lawsuit two years ago, citing health risks as well as damage to personal property related to the air pollution near the plant.

In 2013, a District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, prompting plaintiffs to appeal. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the Grain Processing Corporation “was not entitled to summary judgment” and sent the case back to District Court, which will consider the lawsuit on its merits. You can read the full text of Justice Brent Appel’s ruling here (pdf). (It’s more than 60 pages long and gets into some technical legal issues.) All the other Iowa Superme Court justices concurred, except for Justice Edward Mansfield, who recused himself because some of his former law partners were representing the corporation.

After the jump I’ve posted more background on the lawsuit and excerpts from Jason Liegois’ report for the Muscatine Journal on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. The plaintiffs are not guaranteed to succeed in District Court, but at least they can present their case. In addition to fighting the lawsuit at the lower court level in Iowa, the Grain Processing Corporation could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal Clean Air Act preempts claims like the ones the Muscatine residents are making.

In a 5-2 split decision, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a District Court judge should determine whether Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey can sue Governor Terry Branstad and five other administration officials individually for defamation, extortion and other claims. Follow me after the jump for background, links and details about the opinion.  

Today the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a defamation case filed by Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand over a 2010 negative television ad. You can read the full ruling here (pdf). I’ve posted a few excerpts below.

The Iowa Democratic Party ran the ad on behalf of Democratic candidate Rick Mullin shortly before the 2010 general election. Bertrand immediately filed a defamation lawsuit, in what I assumed was a stunt to change the media narrative. However, he pursued the case after winning the Iowa Senate race. In 2012, a jury decided in favor of Bertrand and awarded him $231,000 in damages. Later, a district court judge reduced the damages to $50,000 but determined that the tv ad constituted “implied libel.” The judge concluded that several statements in the commercial, though technically accurate, created a misleading impression about Bertrand. Both sides appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. Mullin and the Iowa Democratic Party asked the justices to overturn the original verdict, while Bertrand defended his libel claim and objected to the damages being reduced.

I always expected the verdict to be overturned on appeal, because of extensive case law supporting strong protections for political campaign speech, as well as a high bar for any public figure claiming defamation (libel or slander).

Chief Justice Mark Cady cited many judicial opinions in his ruling, joined by Justices Thomas Waterman, Daryl Hecht, Bruce Zager, and David Wiggins. Justices Edward Mansfield and Brent Appel recused themselves from this case for reasons Bleeding Heartland discussed here. During the oral arguments in January, some observers thought Waterman sounded sympathetic to Bertrand’s attorney–which goes to show comments made during oral arguments don’t necessarily reflect the way a judge will decide a case.

This morning, Bertrand told the Des Moines Register, “The Iowa Supreme Court failed the people of Iowa and they failed the nation today. They did not show the courage to really say no to lies and corruption in politics.” Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal released the following statement: “We are pleased with the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. The decision affirms our original position: the communication in question was factually accurate and protected free speech.”

Talk radio host Steve Deace, an Iowa social conservative icon, announced his support for Sam Clovis yesterday in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Deace asserted that Clovis is “most prepared to actually govern” and pointed out that he “was the only candidate who publicly did everything he could to assist Iowa’s historic judicial retention election of 2010, which in our opinion is the most important election we’ve ever been a part of.” Furthermore, Deace noted that “those working and volunteering for Sam Clovis’ campaign are some of the most devoted patriots and principled conservatives we know in Iowa politics.”

I’m only surprised it took him so long to make up his mind. Deace considered Clovis, State Senator Joni Ernst, and former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker. You can read how each of those candidates responded to the radio host’s questions here, here, and here. Clovis sent the most detailed reply by far. Ernst was the only candidate who did not reply directly, but had her campaign consultant David Polyansky respond on her behalf. In a not very subtle swipe at Ernst, Deace urged conservatives not to let “the media” pick the Republican nominee and praised Clovis for being “willing to have a serious and substantive discussion about the future of the country,” in contrast to those who “just regurgitate talking points or get by on focus grouped catch phrases.”

Meanwhile, three-time Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats endorsed Clovis this morning. I’ve posted the campaign’s press release after the jump. Vander Plaats told the Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs that Clovis has the courage of his convictions and is “most prepared to make a difference” in the U.S. Senate. It’s the very least Vander Plaats can do after his long flirtation with a Senate campaign kneecapped Clovis for many months. Who knows how many donors and volunteers stayed on the sidelines while Vander Plaats kept dropping hints that he might run for Senate, in what appears to have been a marketing strategy for his latest book. Clovis worked hard to support the campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010, and in return Vander Plaats gave him a gesture that’s likely too little and too late.

A number of right-wing groups have previously endorsed Clovis, including Citizens United, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, Tea Party Patriots, and the Gun Owners of America. But his campaign’s fundraising has been weak, and the latest FEC filing showed only $54,845 cash on hand as of March 31. In three weeks we’ll find out whether conservative activist energy can deliver for Clovis, in the absence of statewide direct mail and paid media.

Sometimes bills left for dead rise again in the final hours of the Iowa legislature’s work. So it was for Senate File 2297, an “act relating to the criminal transmission of a contagious or infectious disease.” If signed into law, this bill would replace current Iowa law on HIV transmission, under which a person can be sentenced to 25 years in prison, even if the virus that causes AIDS was not transmitted to anyone. For background on the old law, one of the harshest in the country, click here or here, or listen to this Iowa Public Radio program from March. (Incidentally, the Iowa Supreme Court has heard but not yet ruled on a case related to that law but not challenging its constitutionality.)

Whereas current law takes a “one size fits all” approach to HIV transmission cases, Senate File 2297 outlines more serious penalties for those who intentionally infect a partner (not just with HIV, but with any communicable disease) than for those who either didn’t mean to transmit or did not transmit a disease. In addition,

under the new bill, Iowans would no longer be sentenced as sex offenders and a retroactive clause in the bill would remove anyone sentenced under 709c from the sex offender registry. Prosecutors would also have to prove substantial risk, rather than the current law which simply requires non-disclosure.

Senate File 2297 passed the Iowa Senate unanimously in February. Democratic State Senator Rob Hogg said it would update Iowa law to reflect modern medicine and replace a “badly outdated and draconian” part of the code. Republican State Senator Charles Schneider agreed that current law was “not always proportionate” to the crime committed.

So far, so good. But instead of sailing through the Iowa House, Senate File 2297 stalled. It cleared a House Judiciary Subcommittee but not the full committee in time for the “second funnel” deadline in mid-March. The bill landed on the “unfinished business” calendar, which kept it eligible for debate.

I hadn’t heard anything about this bill for some time, until I saw this morning that it came up for debate in Iowa House a little before 2 am. It passed by 98 votes to 0. After the jump I’ve posted a statement from the LGBT advocacy group One Iowa, which has pushed for similar legislation for years.  

In just two days, both the Iowa House and Senate unanimously approved a bill drafted in response to a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling. A majority of justices overturned the conviction of an assistant high school basketball coach who had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a student, on the grounds that he didn’t meet the definition of a “school employee” under Iowa’s sexual exploitation statute. House File 2474 closes that loophole, but unfortunately, State Representative Mary Wolfe identified a drafting problem that could criminalize behavior many people would not consider sexual exploitation.

Wolfe is a criminal defense attorney by trade and gave me permission to reproduce part of her blog post below. But you should head over to her Iowa House Happenings blog and read the whole thing. Click here to read the full text of the April 11 Iowa Supreme Court ruling and dissent.

A three-way Democratic primary is assured in Iowa Senate district 17, as the Iowa Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has affirmed a district court ruling on Tony Bisignano’s eligibility to run for office. Rival candidate Ned Chiodo filed a lawsuit last month, saying Bisignano’s recent aggravated misdemeanor conviction for second-offense OWI should be considered an “infamous crime.” The Iowa Constitution disqualifies citizens convicted of “infamous crimes” from exercising the privileges of “electors.”

Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Justices Daryl Hecht and Bruce Zager. Overturning Iowa Supreme Court precedents set in 1916 and 1957, the court ruled that “infamous crimes” cannot be interpreted to mean any crime punishable by a prison sentence, including aggravated misdemeanors. On the other hand, the court did not simply accept the 1994 law defining “infamous crimes” as felonies. Citing historical references including an 1839 Iowa territorial statute, the plurality argues that not all felonies are “infamous,” and that the words had different meanings at the time the Iowa Constitution was adopted in the 1850s. It did not go on to define which felonies should be considered infamous crimes in the present context.

Justice Edward Mansfield wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas Waterman. The concurrence agrees that Bisignano retains his rights as an elector, because aggravated misdemeanors cannot be considered “infamous crimes.” However, Mansfield would have accepted the bright-line definition from the 1994 state law, equating felonies with “infamous crimes.” He warned that the plurality opinion would serve as a “welcome mat” for future litigation from felons claiming that they should be entitled to vote, because their convictions were not for “infamous crimes.” On balance, I agree most with Mansfield’s opinion.

Justice David Wiggins dissented, arguing that the court should not have rewritten “nearly one hundred years of caselaw.” He would have found Bisignano ineligible to run for office under the longstanding precedent that “infamous crime” means any crime punishable by a prison sentence. Wiggins’ dissenting opinion does not accept the 1994 law which defined “infamous crimes” as felonies, because interpreting the state Constitution is a job for the Iowa Supreme Court, not the state legislature.

Justice Brent Appel recused himself from this case.

The Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on Chiodo’s separate claim that Attorney General Tom Miller should have recused himself from the panel that allowed Bisignano to remain on the ballot. Chiodo argued that Miller had a conflict of interest, because one of his employees, Assistant Attorney General Nathan Blake, is also seeking the Democratic nomination in Senate district 17.

You can read the Iowa Supreme Court’s three opinions in this case here (pdf). After the jump I’ve enclosed summaries and excerpts from each opinion. I also included a statement from Bisignano hailing the ruling and announcing several more labor union endorsements.

One thing’s for sure: today’s ruling won’t be the last attempt by the Iowa Supreme Court to clarify the definition of “infamous crimes.”

UPDATE: Added Nathan Blake’s comment below. SECOND UPDATE: Added more thoughts about the implications of this case.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not hear Iowa Right to Life’s appeal challenging a state law that bans corporations from making campaign contributions, Colin Smith reported at the On Brief legal blog. Last summer, a panel for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Iowa’s ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates while striking down some of the campaign finance disclosure rules Iowa Right to Life had challenged. You can read Iowa Right to Life’s appeal to the Supreme Court here (pdf).

Smith commented,

There had been some interesting speculation that the High Court might decide to hear the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the constitutionality of Iowa corporate contribution law on the merits, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down another blockbuster election law case this month. […]

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Tooker challenge to Iowa’s corporate contribution ban effectively means that Iowa’s law will remain in place for now, although the Court’s order today does not necessarily foreclose the possibility that another enterprising plaintiff might try another challenge in the future.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

The applicant pool for Iowa’s judicial vacancies has been declining in recent years, Mike Wiser reported for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier on March 30. Iowa courts administrator David Boyd has been analyzing trends across the state and concluded that during the past decade, “The applicant pools [for District Court judgeships] were shrinking not only in terms of quantity but in quality, too.”

Applications for court vacancies are down by about half of what they were 10 years ago in four of the eight judicial districts, and down by a third in another two, according to Boyd’s figures.

Wiser’s article identifies three main reasons for the trend. First, District Court judges earn an annual salary of $138,130, which is well above the state average but below what high-performing attorneys can earn in private practice. Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady asked state legislators to increase judges’ pay by 4.5 percent, but State Representative Gary Worthan, who chairs the Iowa House Appropriations subcommittee on the judicial system told Wiser, “we’ve got other priorities this year.”

Second, years of state budget cuts to court support staff have also made the work of a judge less appealing, according to several people Wiser interviewed.

Finally, University of Iowa School of Law professor Patrick Bauer and others cited the successful 2010 campaign against retaining three Iowa Supreme Court justices. That crusade was the first and perhaps the last time a politically unpopular ruling ended judges’ careers in Iowa. Nevertheless, it has deterred some attorneys from aspiring to become judges. Bob Vander Plaats and his fellow social conservatives failed to end marriage equality in Iowa, but they have left their mark on the judicial system.

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

So much election-related litigation in the news this past week: the Iowa Supreme Court rejecting Jonathan Narcisse’s quest for a spot on the Democratic primary ballot for governor, a Polk County District Court rejecting Ned Chiodo’s efforts to knock Tony Bisignano off the ballot in Iowa Senate district 17, and Secretary of State Matt Schultz asking the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling on voter roll maintenance procedures.

I didn’t manage to write up the country’s most important election law story: on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on individual donations to federal candidates and political parties. Click here (pdf) to read Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission on behalf of four justices, Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Breyer warned that the majority’s ruling used “faulty” legal analysis based on “its own, not a record-based, view of the facts.” Creating “a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign,” the McCutcheon decision along with the 2010 Citizens United ruling (also a 5-4 split) “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws” in Breyer’s view.

Here are some good opinion and analysis pieces on the Roberts decision, from Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUS blog, Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, and Robert Weissman, president of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.

Not surprisingly, Iowa’s Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley expressed support for the McCutcheon decision, equating money in politics to free speech. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was discouraged, predicting that the ruling will diminish “public interest in politics” and continue the country’s drift toward “more and more influence by the wealthy and those who have money in politics.”  

On behalf of Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the Iowa Attorney General’s office has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to review last month’s District Court decision invalidating a proposed rule that has been one of Schultz’s priorities. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the rule would allow the Secretary of State’s Office to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status against a federal database. Registered voters suspected of not being citizens would be informed by mail. Those who cannot prove their citizenship or do not respond within 60 days would be removed from the voter rolls.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg determined that Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated the rule. His decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens did not address a separate legal question: whether Schultz’s rule violated the right to vote.

If the Iowa Supreme Court overturns last month’s decision, that would mean only that the Secretary of State had the authority to establish the new rule in the absence of legislative action. Further litigation would determine whether the procedure Schultz envisioned could intimidate eligible voters or deprive them of their rights.

I expect the Iowa Supreme Court to uphold the District Court ruling. Regardless, the appeal may boost Schultz’s standing with Republican primary voters in the third Congressional district. They will love this part of yesterday’s press release from the Secretary of State’s Office:

“I have fought for integrity and voter’s rights.  We can’t allow non-citizens to cancel out the vote of Iowans, but at the same time, anyone accused deserves due process.  My rule gives voters more due process and protects the integrity of the vote,” Schultz said.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. Schultz’s use of the phrase “due process” suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of his role. The Secretary of State is an administrator, not a law enforcement official.  

The former Chief Administrative Law Judge for Iowa Workforce Development filed suit yesterday in Polk County District Court against the State of Iowa and Iowa Workforce Development Director Teresa Wahlert. You can read the full text of Joseph Walsh’s lawsuit here (pdf). After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt from his case. Walsh alleges that the IWD director “interfere[d] with the administrative judicial process in order to favor employers,” attempted “to illegally strip [Walsh] of his merit protection,” and eventually retaliated by removing him in “a political reorganization disguised as a budget layoff.”

I’ve also enclosed below a statement Wahlert released yesterday, denouncing the “frivolous lawsuit.” Wahlert contends that while serving as chief administrative law judge, Walsh failed in basic management responsibilities.

Last month, Democratic State Senator Bill Dotzler asked the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate claims that Wahlert interfered with the work of Iowa’s administrative law judges, hoping to secure more favorable outcomes for employers in unemployment cases. Governor Terry Branstad rejected Dotzler’s allegations against Wahlert without conducting any internal review of the matter.

At a press conference in Des Moines on April 3, Walsh asserted that “in many ways this administration is tearing the Department of Workforce Development down.” Wahlert’s agency was at the center of political controversy in 2011, when the Branstad administration moved to replace dozens of Iowa Workforce Development field offices around the state with hundreds of computer terminal access points. That reorganization led to a lawsuit and eventually an Iowa Supreme Court ruling that the governor had overstepped his authority by striking legislative language about the IWD offices without vetoing the money allocated to fund those offices.  

Polk County District Court Judge David Christensen on April 2 rejected Ned Chiodo’s appeal against a panel decision allowing Tony Bisignano to run for Iowa Senate district 17. Chiodo, Bisignano, and Nathan Blake all qualified for the Democratic primary ballot in the seat Senator Jack Hatch is vacating in order to run for governor. Chiodo challenged Bisignano’s eligibility to run for office, citing a drunk driving offense that is an aggravated misdemeanor. A panel of Attorney General Tom Miller, State Auditor Mary Mosiman, and Secretary of State Matt Schultz concluded that Bisigano could run, because Iowa Code specifies felony convictions (not aggravated misdemeanors) as disqualifying citizens from voting or running for office.

Chiodo’s appeal in Polk County District Court rests on two legal arguments: Miller should have recused himself from the panel deciding whether Bisignano is eligible, and Bisignano’s second-offense OWI should be considered an “infamous crime” under Iowa case law. Judge Christensen concluded that Chiodo “failed to assert sufficient grounds to disqualify the Attorney General from serving on the Panel,” nor was Chiodo “prejudiced by the inclusion of the Attorney General in the Panel.”

After the jump I’ve posted the second half of Judge Christensen’s ruling. Although three Iowa Supreme Court decisions indicate that crimes punishable by a prison sentence can be considered “infamous crimes,” the Iowa legislature has since spelled out its clear intention to revoke the rights of electors only in cases of felonies. The judge denied Chiodo’s petition for review, since he “failed to carry his burden to show that the Panel’s decision was unconstitutional,” and there was no evidence that decision was “based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law,” or illogical, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The judge ordered Chiodo to pay court costs.

The Iowa Supreme Court is likely to have the final say on this matter, but I find it hard to imagine they will disqualify Bisignano. Doing so would potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands of Iowans with aggravated misdemeanor convictions.

State Senator Jack Hatch will be unopposed on the Democratic primary ballot for governor. The Iowa Supreme Court issued a short opinion on March 31 affirming without comment a District Court’s decision rejecting Jonathan Narcisse’s claim that he submitted enough signatures to seek the Democratic nomination for governor. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule because primary ballots need to be sent to the printer soon. They did not explain the reasoning behind affirming the lower court’s decision. Reports last week indicated that three of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices would hear Narcisse’s appeal: David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht, and Edward Mansfield. However, the ruling released yesterday indicates that all justices concurred except for Brent Appel, who recused himself.

Speaking by telephone this morning, Narcisse confirmed that he will run a write-in campaign for the Democratic primary. He said he was “disappointed the Supreme Court affirmed the decision without reviewing the evidence.” He acknowledged his campaign’s oversight in not making sure the “governor” line was filled in on all the nominating petitions: “Ultimately, this happened because we messed up, but the law was not equitably applied. This was not a disqualifiable offense.” He particularly objected to how the District Court considered a 2012 election law ruling from Arizona but rejected as evidence the Iowa panel ruling from the same year allowing State Senator Joe Seng to run for Congress, despite missing information on some of his nominating petitions.

Narcisse said he has “no illusions about a write-in campaign” but is compelled to keep talking about issues that need to be addressed, including the “disparity in justice,” the “phony war on drugs which is really a war on the poor,” and Iowa’s “bipartisan alliance brutalizing poor working people.” In his view, Hatch “has not fought the good fight the way he should have.” Narcisse said he has not decided yet whether he would mount a second bid for governor as an independent.

After the jump I’ve posted a more extensive comment from the Narcisse campaign about the lower court’s ruling on his ballot access.

UPDATE: Added a comment below from Alfredo Parrish, who represented Narcisse.

For now, State Senator Jack Hatch remains unopposed on the Democratic primary ballot for Iowa governor. Jonathan Narcisse appealed his exclusion in Polk County District Court on Wednesday, citing precedent from a 2012 panel decision allowing State Senator Joe Seng on the primary ballot in IA-02. Yesterday Judge Michael Huppert ruled against Narcisse, saying the missing information on some petitions left those who signed unable to conclude that the candidate was running for governor.

Narcisse’s attorney, Alfredo Parrish, has already appealed the decision. I enclosed after the jump a statement explaining Narcisse’s case. I think he has a valid argument, based on how officials bent the rules to accommodate Seng.

You can read the 2012 Seng decision here (pdf). Pages 4 through 7 contain the most relevant information. Some petitions allowed were missing Seng’s county of residence, which is admittedly a much less serious defect than Narcisse’s petitions leaving blank the line for office sought. But the panel also counted Seng petitions that were missing the Congressional district number. “Likewise, we find that, absent any showing of any intent to mislead by the candidate or confusion on the part of the signatories, the Davis County signature pages that lacked only the congressional district number substantially comply with the intent of section 43.14 and should be counted.” To this non-lawyer, that sounds very close to not telling voters the office you’re seeking. I suppose there is a slight difference if Seng’s petitions showed he was running for Congress, while the disputed Narcisse petitions did not list any office. Iowa’s rules are designed to prevent any “bait and switch” during the signature collection process.

The career Division of Criminal Investigation agent who lost his job shortly after reporting a speeding incident involving Governor Terry Branstad’s SUV is willing to drop his lawsuit against the state if he can get his old job back, James Q. Lynch reported yesterday for the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

“He is interested in returning and it’s our understanding the position is still available,” said Tom Duff, a Des Moines attorney representing former DCI special agent Larry Hedlund.

Hedlund was a central figure in a high-profile incident last April where a state trooper driving an SUV carrying Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds was clocked driving 84 mph in a 65-mph zone. […]

Although officially retired now, Hedlund is interested in returning to work, Duff said. Since the incident, the director of the Department of Public Safety has left state employment and two others involved in the handling of the Hedlund case have moved to other jobs.

The former Department of Public Safety chief was Brian London, who stepped down last September. His tenure at the agency was a real train wreck. The Iowa Senate recently confirmed Larry Noble to run the department again; he was Branstad’s first choice for that job.

By many accounts, Hedlund was a solid employee during his long career at the DCI. If he is willing to work there again, rehiring him seems like an easy call. I can’t imagine why the state would prefer to roll the dice on expensive litigation. Court hearings would only generate more coverage of Hedlund being forced out. Hedlund’s attorney told Lynch that he has not heard back yet from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.  

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

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

While Governor Terry Branstad vacations in Arizona this week, his administration is facing new allegations of misconduct. As first reported in the Sunday Des Moines Register, at least six former state employees were offered secret settlement deals after claiming they were forced out of their jobs for political reasons. Today, Democratic State Senator Bill Dotzler announced that he is seeking a federal investigation into the actions of Iowa Workforce Development Director Teresa Wahlert, whom Dotzler accused of interfering with the work of administrative law judges.

After the jump I’ve posted several links about both scandals as well as some political reaction. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

As Bleeding Heartland has discussed before, I’ve long felt that Governor Terry Branstad’s disregard for local government authority is one of the most under-reported Iowa political stories of the last few years. The Iowa Department of Transportation’s new rules restricting cities’ use of traffic cameras is one of many examples. Bills seeking to ban local governments from using traffic cameras for law enforcement stalled during the 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions. The Iowa DOT’s new rules went into effect last month; they do not prohibit all use of traffic cameras but require annual reviews to show the cameras are improving safety and not just serving as a revenue source for local government.

Sioux City is one of many Iowa municipalities that have installed traffic cameras on some major roads and intersections. The Iowa DOT gave Sioux City officials “until May 1 to justify the use of two speed cameras and seven of its 11 red-light cameras.” Now the city government has filed a lawsuit claiming the state department exceeded its authority.

Assistant City attorney, Justin Vondrak, filed the judicial review action in Woodbury County District Court and says the DOT regulations make it almost impossible for the city to use speed cameras along Interstate 29 within the city limits. “What we’re asking for is a review of the rules and to eventually have the rules determined to be unconstitutional based on the city’s home rule authority, as well as other Iowa code sections which grant the city joint jurisdiction with the DOT for traffic enforcement upon the primary roadways within the city’s jurisdiction,” according to Vondrak.

More details on the lawsuit are after the jump.

Whatever the District Court rules, I expect the losing side to appeal and would not be surprised to see the Iowa Supreme Court eventually decide this matter. The case raises interesting questions about local and state government powers. On a related note, I still think some municipality should have challenged Governor Branstad’s executive order on project labor agreements in court.

I’m always fascinated when conservatives who claim to support “states’ rights” cry foul when another state enacts a law they dislike. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, a law designed “to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals,” including new rules on conditions for egg-laying hens. State lawmakers later passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law extending those rules to producers of any eggs sold in California. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) tried but ultimately failed to insert language in the federal Farm Bill overturning California’s law, which will affect Iowa egg producers when it becomes effective on January 1, 2015. King argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, creating an illegal trade barrier between states.

Since President Barack Obama signed into law a five-year Farm Bill that does not include King’s amendment, attorneys general in Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the California law. Governor Terry Branstad announced yesterday that he has joined that lawsuit on Iowa’s behalf. Details are after the jump, including excerpts from the court filing and statements released by Branstad and King.

I am not an attorney, much less a specialist on the Commerce Clause, but I doubt the plaintiffs will succeed in overturning the California law, for three reasons: 1) the law does not “discriminate”; 2) the law does not force any conduct on egg producers outside the state of California; and 3) overturning this law would prompt a wave of lawsuits seeking to invalidate any state regulation designed to set higher standards for safety, public health, or consumer protection.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled yesterday that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated a rule designed to identify and remove suspected non-citizens from Iowa voter rolls. Schultz first tried to enact a similar rule using “emergency” procedures during the summer of 2012, but a different Polk County judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect before the 2012 general election.

Schultz then proposed a different version of the rule (full text here) and enacted it using the normal rulemaking process. Several advocacy groups claimed the rules could intimidate and/or disenfranchise legitimate Iowa voters. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens restarted their voter suppression lawsuit last March. In September, District Court Judge Rosenberg rejected Schultz’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in November, Rosenberg issued a temporary injunction preventing Schultz from implementing the rule before the court considered the merits of the case.

Yesterday Rosenberg found in favor of the plaintiffs, saying Schultz “lacked the statutory authority” to promulgate a rule allowing his office to use a federal database to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status. He further found that there was no rational basis for concluding that the rule was within the delegated authority of the Iowa Secretary of State’s office and ordered the respondent to pay legal costs. Schultz plans to appeal the ruling, which you can read in full at the Des Moines Register’s website. I doubt the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, because the excerpts I’ve posted below are convincing.

Side note: I suspect that Schultz expected this verdict, and the likely failure of this crusade was one among several factors that prompted him to bail out of his current position in order to run for Congress in the open third district.

UPDATE: Added some comments from the ACLU of Iowa below. It’s worth noting that this ruling focused on the matter of Schultz’s authority and did not settle the question of whether his procedure would have wrongfully intimidated eligible voters or deprived them of their voting rights.

By a voice vote on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Kevin Techau as U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, based in Cedar Rapids. Senator Tom Harkin recommended Techau for the position, and President Barack Obama nominated him in November. The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Iowa’s Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican, approved Techau’s nomination by voice vote last month.

For more background on Techau’s career, click here or read Grassley’s Senate floor statement in support of the nomination, which I’ve posted below.

Techau will replace Stephanie Rose, who left the position as U.S. Attorney for Iowa’s Northern District to become a federal judge in Iowa’s Southern District, based in Des Moines.

Iowa’s Constitution lays out a straightforward process for changing state law: first, a bill needs to pass the Iowa House and Senate by a simple majority in both chambers. Then, the governor signs the bill into law. Alternatively, state legislators can pass a new law without the governor’s support, by over-riding a veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Iowa House Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad don’t like current state law on setting state funding for K-12 education a year in advance. However, they lack support in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate for changing that law through the normal legislative process. So, they have decided they can pretend the law doesn’t exist.

It appears that nothing short of a court order will change their minds.

This morning Governor Terry Branstad stood by Iowa Department of Human Services Director Chuck Palmer and his handling of problems at the Iowa Juvenile Home in Toledo (Tama County). He also spoke confidently about his appeal to Iowa Supreme Court against a Polk County District Court ruling ordering that the Iowa Juvenile Home be reopened.

More background and details are after the jump.  

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled yesterday in favor of plaintiffs who are challenging the closure of the Iowa Juvenile Home by the Iowa Department of Human Services. Finding that the four state legislators and the president of a public employees union were “likely to succeed on the merits” when the court considers their lawsuit, Judge Rosenberg granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. He ordered Governor Terry Branstad’s administration to “reopen the Toledo home and abide by the duly passed laws of the state of Iowa which established the Toledo Home […].”

After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt from the ruling, which you can read in full on the Des Moines Register’s website. I’ve also posted reaction from several of the plaintiffs and from Branstad.

This isn’t the first time a state court has found that the governor overreached in disregarding legislative intent on the allocation of state funds. Maybe Branstad should get better legal advice before deciding to ignore language from budget bills he signed into law.