I knew that Governor Terry Branstad was trying to fill the State Judicial Nominating Commission with conservatives and big Republican donors.

I knew that Branstad liked naming former state legislators to prominent positions, sometimes without considering anyone else for the job, sometimes even when the former lawmaker hadn’t asked for the job.

But until yesterday, I never imagined that Branstad would consider a Judicial Nominating Commission an appropriate place for someone who tried to impeach Iowa Supreme Court justices over the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage.  

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in an appeal of Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand’s defamation lawsuit against his 2010 opponent, Rick Mullin, and the Iowa Democratic Party. Des Moines attorney and law blogger Ryan Koopmans live-tweeted the hearing, and Mike Wiser and Grant Rodgers published summaries.

We’ll know the verdict within a few months, but I’ve posted some thoughts and predictions below.

Four Democratic state legislators and the leader of Iowa’s largest public employee union filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to block Governor Terry Branstad’s administration from closing the Iowa Juvenile Home in Toledo (Tama County) this month. Joining AFSCME Iowa Council 61 President Danny Homan are gubernatorial candidate Senator Jack Hatch, Senator Steve Sodders (whose district includes Toledo), Iowa House Minority Leader Mark Smith, and former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. The lawsuit alleges that it is unconstitutional for Branstad to close the home after signing into law budget appropriations for operating the home in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. An official statement from the plaintiffs is after the jump, along with a brief summary provided by Sodders.

When Iowa Department of Human Services Director Chuck Palmer announced in December that the Iowa Juvenile Home would be closed after all the resident girls were relocated, he said the “difficult decision” was in the best interests of the girls who had lived there. Yesterday Governor Branstad also cited the interests of “those kids who’ve been mistreated and abused and not gotten their education.”

Over the past year, the Des Moines Register’s Clark Kauffman has documented outrageous practices at the Iowa Juvenile Home, including long placements in isolated cells. In October, a task force appointed by Branstad recommended reforms for the facility. The lawsuit alleges that at the governor’s direction, DHS Director Palmer disregarded the task force’s recommendations and will unlawfully use funds appropriated for the Juvenile Home for other purposes.

In 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court found that Branstad had improperly used his line-item veto power to change how state funds were allocated. This case is somewhat different but poses similar constitutional questions.

Republicans are preventing the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from conducting routine business in retaliation for last month’s rules reform that limited the Senate minority’s power to filibuster presidential nominations. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on Judiciary and a vocal critic of what he called a “power grab” that stopped Republicans from demanding a 60-vote majority on almost every Senate action. Yesterday Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy criticized “obstruction” by his Republican colleagues, who boycotted an executive meeting to consider eighteen nominations last week and “invoked procedural tactics” to scuttle a hearing on five U.S. District Court nominees, which had been scheduled for December 18. Leahy warned that he may “reconsider long-held policies that have upheld the rights of the minority party” in committee matters.

Leahy’s statement is enclosed after the jump, along with Grassley’s response. He denied that Republicans have obstructed judicial nominations and said it would inevitably be “harder to get things done” after “Democrats broke the rules to change the rules.”

An October 2013 report by the Alliance for Justice found that “‘Pervasive and surreptitious’ obstruction of President [Barack] Obama’s judicial nominees is prolonging an ‘unprecedented vacancy crisis’ in America’s federal courts.” You can find that full report here. I’ve posted a few excerpts below.

UPDATE: Added a December 19 Judiciary Committee floor statement from Grassley on “so-called obstruction.”

The U.S. Senate continued to move forward last week on more of President Barack Obama’s stalled nominees. Since Bleeding Heartland posted this update last Tuesday, four U.S. district court judge nominations and five more executive branch nominations advanced to the Senate floor under new rules that do not require 60 votes for a cloture motion. You can find links to all the roll calls here.

All of the Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for cloture every time and to confirm all of the nominees. Almost all of Republicans, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted against every cloture motion. Each judge was then confirmed by much larger majorities of at least 70 senators. Grassley voted for confirming Elizabeth A. Wolford as a judge for the Western District of New York, Landya B. McCafferty for the District of New Hampshire, and Brian Morris and Susan P. Watters, both for judgeships in the District of Montana. As a general rule, even before filibuster reform, district court judicial nominees have moved through the Senate confirmation process more easily than U.S. appeals court nominees.

The executive branch nominees considered last week were Rachel Feldblum to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Patricia M. Wald to be a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Deborah Lee James to be Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Higginbottom to be deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, and Anne W. Patterson to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Grassley voted against the cloture motions on all of those nominations. When the Senate considered the nominations themselves, Grassley voted against confirming Feldblum and Wald but for confirming James and Higginbottom. The final vote on Patterson’s nomination will take place this week.

I didn’t see any public comments from Harkin or Grassley regarding the latest confirmation votes. Last week, Grassley again objected strongly to the Senate rules reform as a “power grab” and “erosion of the separation of powers” in order to “remove a meaningful judicial check on the executive branch of government and its agenda.”

In its first confirmation votes since changing U.S. Senate rules on the filibuster, a majority of senators voted today to confirm Patricia Millett as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Millett was one of three nominees for that court blocked by Senate Republicans this fall. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the D.C. Circuit does not need more than eight judges and strongly objected to new limits on the filibuster. But he wasn’t able to stop Senate Democrats from passing a cloture motion on Millett’s nomination shortly before the Thanksgiving recess. A last-ditch effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to challenge the rule change failed this morning. Then Democrats and one Republican confirmed Judge Millett by 56 votes to 38.

Later today, the Senate is expected to confirm Representative Mel Watt as Federal Housing Finance Agency director. A Republican filibuster had derailed his nomination in October. Today the Senate approved by 57 votes to 40 a cloture motion “to set up eight hours of debate on his nomination.” A final confirmation vote is scheduled for this evening.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from a recent commentary by Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin, a leading advocate of filibuster reform. I’ll add comments from Harkin and Grassley on today’s votes if they become available.

UPDATE: Senators confirmed Watt by 57 votes to 41, then moved on to reconsider a cloture motion on Cornelia Pillard’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That motion passed by 56 votes to 42. Harkin and Grassley were on opposite sides on all of these votes. Grassley had led a successful filibuster of Pillard’s nomination in November.

SECOND UPDATE: Added Grassley’s floor statement on Millett’s nomination. He repeated his case against adding any more judges to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After years of trying, Senator Tom Harkin finally got a majority of his colleagues on board with Senate rules reform. Today 52 members of the Democratic caucus voted to curtail the minority’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees. The same 52 senators then rejected Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s objection to the ruling from the chair. Just like that, Reid invoked the so-called “nuclear option,” which Republicans used to call the “constitutional option” when they flirted with the same rule change in 2006. From now on, only a simple majority of 51 votes will be needed to end debate on a judicial or executive branch nomination–not the 60 votes needed for cloture before today.

A series of Republican filibusters against nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finally pushed Reid to action. Immediately following the rules change, the Senate passed by 55 votes to 43 a cloture motion on the nomination of Patricia Millett, whom Republicans filibustered last month.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, vehemently objected to the rules change as a “blatant power grab,” while Harkin called for more limits to filibusters that block legislation. Comments from both senators are after the jump. President Barack Obama welcomed the rules change, saying, “I realize neither party has been blameless for these tactics … But today’s pattern of obstruction just isn’t normal.” But McConnell warned Democrats, “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”

UPDATE: Added more comments from both Harkin and Grassley below. Grassley warned that when his party is in the majority, they will likely remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well. For the record, Senate Democrats have never filibustered a Republican president’s Supreme Court nominee.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate again blocked a vote on one of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees yesterday. Robert Wilkins has served on the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC since his unanimous confirmation in 2010. But a cloture motion on Wilkins’ nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit failed with just 53 votes out of the 60 needed to end debate. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has led recent filibusters on two other nominees to the D.C. Circuit, claiming the court’s workload does not justify additional judges. In a floor statement that I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley made the same assertion but added a new twist:

There is no crisis on the D.C. Circuit, because they don’t have enough work to do as it is. […]

Even though we have a very real and very serious crisis facing this country because of Obamacare, the other side is desperately trying to divert attention to anything but the Obamacare disaster.

I’ve also posted statements below from the National Women’s Law Center and the Alliance for Justice, which again called for Senate rules reform. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says that presidential nominees need a super-majority to be confirmed by the Senate.

UPDATE: I did not realize that Judge Wilkins filed the lawsuit against the Maryland State Police “that helped popularize the term ‘driving while black'” during the 1990s.

I’ve added some clips at the end of this post on the growing momentum for changing Senate rules to end fillibusters of judicial nominees.

It’s time for an update on the legal conflict between Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and voter rights advocates over Schultz’s efforts to remove “potential non-citizen registrants” from Iowa voter rolls. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa are suing to block the rule and won an important court victory yesterday. Follow me after the jump for background and details.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate successfully filibustered yet another judicial appointment today. President Barack Obama had nominated Cornelia Pillard to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But a cloture motion failed to gain the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules to end debate on her nomination. Two Republicans joined all of the Democrats present, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, to vote for cloture, but the motion still failed 56 to 41 (roll call). As with Caitlin Halligan and Patricia Millett, two other Obama nominees defeated by GOP filibusters, opponents did not even try to pretend Pillard was not qualified to serve on the court. Rather, Grassley (the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) again claimed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals does not have a large enough caseload to justify eleven judges.  

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s floor statement explaining his vote against confirming Pillard. I’ve also enclosed a statement from the Alliance for Justice, which has thoroughly debunked Grassley’s arguments about the D.C. court’s caseload. Senate Democrats made a huge mistake by not embracing Harkin’s call for filibuster reform years ago.

The White House announced yesterday that President Barack Obama has nominated Kevin W. Techau for U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, based in Cedar Rapids. He would replace Stephanie Rose, whom the U.S. Senate confirmed last year as a federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa. Senator Tom Harkin had recommended Techau for the position and welcomed the nomination in a statement I’ve posted after the jump, along with the White House press release. Both contain short bios of the nominee.

Techau should have no trouble being confirmed by the Senate. He has worked as a litigator in private practice, as a federal public defender, and most recently as an in-house attorney for an insurance company. He also has extensive management experience as director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals and later Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety during Tom Vilsack’s administration. Techau has lived in central Iowa for many years but grew up in Marion, a suburb of Cedar Rapids.  

Polls closed at 8:00 pm across Iowa. What local elections are you following tonight, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Polk County voters appear to have approved Public Measure A to fund improvements to the county court system. UPDATE: With all precincts reporting, “yes” on A has 21,702 votes (67 percent) to 10,611 votes (33 percent) for “no.”

With 65 of 71 precincts reporting, Des Moines at-large City Council member Skip Moore has 7,720 votes, while challenger Chris Diebel has 4,725 votes. Incumbent Chris Hensley has been re-elected in the third ward, and in the open first ward, Bill Gray has a lead over Sean Bagniewski, the candidate preferred by many progressives and labor activists.

UPDATE: Windsor Heights results are in: for the first time I can remember, all of the candidates I supported won! Longtime city council member Diana Willits won the open race for mayor (Jerry Sullivan retired). Diana is one of the few Republicans I’ve consistently voted for over the years. Unofficial results for city council indicate that the winners were incumbent Betty Glover (whom I didn’t support) and candidates Steve Peterson and Tony Timm (for whom I voted). Peterson is a former city council member and was the Joe Biden precinct captain in Windsor Heights 2 in 2008. Timm is the executive director of the largest homeless shelter in Des Moines.

SECOND UPDATE: By a 2-1 margin, Iowa City voters upheld the city ordinance keeping 19 and 20-year-olds out of bars. The Iowa City council results will be a disappointment to those who were hoping to elect more progressives in the “people’s republic.”

THIRD UPDATE: Looks like the incumbents were re-elected in Coralville, a big loss for the Koch brothers’ group Americans for Prosperity.

FOURTH UPDATE: Two local officials who are running for the state legislature as Republicans lost yesterday. Royce Phillips was a city council member in Tiffin and is a candidate for the open Iowa Senate district 39. Mark LeRette was a city council member in Muscatine and is a candidate for the open House district 91.

Cedar Rapids voters re-elected Mayor Ron Corbett. An ten-year extension of the local-option sales tax also passed easily in the Cedar Rapids metro area.

Local elections take place across Iowa today. Polls opened at 7 am and will be open until 8 pm. If you have an absentee ballot, don’t put it in the mail today: hand-deliver it to your county auditor’s office, or it won’t count.

The mayoral and city council elections in Coralville have drawn national attention because of spending by Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers operation. John Deeth has posted about the Coralville and Iowa City contests, particularly Iowa City’s vote on repealing an ordinance that prohibits 19- and 20-year-olds from hanging out in bars.

The at-large Des Moines City Council race between Skip Moore and Chris Diebel has turned into the most divisive local election I can remember for Democrats here. Later today I have a post coming on that campaign.

Polk County residents will vote today on Public Measure A, a Public Safety & Judicial System Bond to fund courthouse renovations and other improvements. After the jump I’ve posted a few reasons to vote yes on this ballot measure.

UPDATE: The bond passed by 67 percent to 33 percent according to unofficial returns. 60 percent was needed for passage.

This summer, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate reached an informal deal to allow presidential nominees to be confirmed more smoothly without any new limits on the minority’s filibuster powers. The deal held for a while, allowing a bunch of stalled nominations to move forward. But filibuster reform may be back on the agenda soon, because today Republicans including Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley blocked the confirmation of two more presidential nominees today: Patricia Millett for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Representative Mel Watt to be the Federal Housing Finance Agency director. All the Senate Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for the cloture motions on the Millett and Watt nominations.

Millett is highly qualified for the judgeship, so instead of pretending to have a substantive case against her, Grassley says the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have a large enough caseload to justify more judges. That didn’t stop him or other Senate Republicans from voting to confirm all of President George W. Bush’s nominees for that court, as Judith E. Schaeffer explained in this excellent background piece on the controversy. Other analysts have discussed the many problems judicial vacancies are creating in the federal court system. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley helps set the tone for the GOP on these confirmations.

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s Senate floor statement on the Millett nomination, comments from the Iowa Fair Courts Coalition, and an excerpt from Schaeffer’s post on Grassley and the D.C. Circuit. I haven’t seen any comment from Grassley on the Watt nomination but will update this post if he explains why he opposed him. According to Peter Schroeder of The Hill, “GOP lawmakers argued Watt lacked the experience to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Via the On Brief blog, I saw that yesterday the Iowa Supreme Court made public proposed changes to rules about electronic media coverage of its proceedings. I’ve posted the full press release after the jump.

The new rules are based on recommendations by a Committee on Expanded Media Coverage, appointed last December. Iowa Supreme Court Justice Bruce Zager chaired that committee, which included journalists as well as court officials and submitted its final report in August 2013. You can view the proposed rule changes here; words to be removed are crossed out, while suggested new language is underlined. Instructions on submitting a public comment on or before January 6, 2014, are here. People may submit their comments in person, by regular mail, or via e-mail.  

Via Radio Iowa I saw that a report just came out about spending in judicial elections across the country in 2011 and 2012. Researchers from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and the nonpartisan group Justice at Stake collaborated on the report, which you can download here (pdf). Excerpt:

Spending in the Iowa Supreme Court retention election totaled more than $833,000 in 2012, down from the $1.4 million spent in 2010 but still substantial in a state with no recorded spending on high court races during the previous decade. Anti-retention groups spent $466,000 on the 2012 election, including $318,000 by Iowans For Freedom and $148,000 by the National Organization for Marriage. Both groups ran television ads. Pro-retention groups spent $367,000, including $320,000 by Justice Not Politics, $37,000 by the Iowa State Bar and roughly $5,000 each by Progress Iowa and the Human Rights Campaign.

Major donors to Iowans for Freedom (a campaign group fronted by Bob Vander Plaats) included “CitizenLink, Patriot Voices, The Family Leader, the National Organization for Marriage, and CatholicVote.” Of the $466,000 spent on the “No Wiggins” campaign, an estimated $163,600 went toward broadcasting two television commercials. Bleeding Heartland posted videos and transcripts of those ads here and here.

Justice David Wiggins didn’t create a campaign fund or raise money directly. The largest donor to Justice Not Politics Action was the LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, which gave $135,000. That’s more than a third of the total funds spent campaigning for retention.

Iowa voters retained Wiggins by a margin of 680,284 votes to 567,024 (about 54.5 percent to 45.5 percent). Whereas just ten counties had voted to retain the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention in 2010, 36 counties voted yes on Wiggins in 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justice Bruce Zager emerged as “swing” votes on the Iowa Supreme Court during the latest session, according to new analysis by Ryan Koopmans at the On Brief blog. During the 2012/2013 term, the high court handed down split decisions in 30 of the 83 cases considered that were not related to attorney discipline. Two distinct “voting blocs” emerged, with Justices David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht, and Brent Appel often on one side and Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman on the other side. Cady and Zager were usually part of the majority and only occasionally sided with the dissenters.

A similar analysis by Koopmans showed that during the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2011/2012 term, Zager was the only swing justice, never dissenting from a majority opinion. Cady typically ended up on the same side as Waterman and Mansfield.

Tables on this page show how often each of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed with each other in non-unanimous decisions during the past two years. It will be interesting to see whether these trends hold or change.

Governor Terry Branstad appointed Cady in 1998 and Mansfield, Waterman, and Zager in 2011. Governor Tom Vilsack appointed Wiggins in 2003 and Appel and Hecht in 2006. None of the justices will be up for retention in 2014. Cady, Appel, and Hecht should have little trouble being retained again in 2016, judging from the failed attempt by social conservatives to oust Wiggins in 2012.

Governor Terry Branstad doesn’t care for our state’s merit selection process for nominating judges. He would prefer to nominate whomever he wants, subject to confirmation by the Iowa Senate, instead of being forced to appoint judges from short lists drawn up by the State Judicial Nominating Commission. But changing that procedure would require amending the Iowa Constitution, a lengthy process for which there is no support in the Iowa Senate. Branstad has moved to “correct” an imbalance by appointing Republicans to the State Judicial Nominating Commission. (Conservatives have long charged that Democrats came to dominate that commission under Governors Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver.)

Putting conservatives in a position to select judges is one thing, but is it too much to ask the governor to pick people with a clue about separation of church and state? Ryan J. Foley of the Associated Press reports today that Scott Bailey, a 2012 Branstad appointee, asked Assistant Iowa Attorney General Jeanie Vaudt during a public interview, “Did you make covenant vows with your husband, and do you feel you have or that you are breaking those in this situation?” Excerpts from Foley’s report are after the jump.

Judicial Nominating Commission members aren’t supposed to inquire about applicants’ marital status at all, let alone ask whether they are adhering to a “covenant” marriage. Vaudt was one of 22 applicants for a vacancy on the Iowa Court of Appeals and made the short list of three forwarded to Branstad last week.

Traditionally, the governor’s appointees to judicial nominating commissions are non-lawyers. Branstad ought to insist on non-lawyers with some clue about how the judicial system works. Red flags were there from the beginning with Bailey, a leader of the “Christ-centered” Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators who admitted on his own application that he would like “to help identify qualified candidates who will judge without partiality and uphold both civil and natural law.” Unfortunately, Bailey has been confirmed to serve on this commission through the end of January 2018. Here’s hoping that Branstad will be more discerning next time he fills a vacancy on the commission.

UPDATE: Radio Iowa posted the audio of Vaudt’s opening statement and Bailey’s question. Bailey commented to O.Kay Henderson, “I was happy that she and her husband were unified on this and it wasn’t causing a disturbance to their marriage.” Not a factor he needs to consider.

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

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

The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board voted unanimously on August 8 to investigate the National Organization for Marriage’s spending in Iowa during the 2010 and 2012 judicial retention elections. Details are after the jump.

UPDATE: Added details below on the National Organization for Marriage demanding that the ethics board’s executive director recuse herself from any investigation.

Bipartisan consensus allowed a group of President Barack Obama’s nominees to be confirmed easily this week, but a Republican filibuster nearly blocked the confirmation of one federal agency head. In addition, Senator Chuck Grassley again pushed back against claims that Republicans have dragged their feet on confirming federal judges during Obama’s presidency.

Details are after the jump.

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

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

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

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

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

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

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

The Brennan Center for Justice released a new study today in which Alicia Bannon analyzed judicial vacancies in federal district courts. Key finding: “for the first time in 20 years, judicial vacancies averaged more than 60 vacant seats for five straight years from 2009-2013, breaking historic patterns and delaying the resolution of critical legal disputes in civil and criminal trials.” You can find the whole report on “Trial Courts in Trouble” here. After the jump I’ve posted the Brennan Center’s press release and an excerpt from the report’s introduction, along with some comments by Jonathan Bernstein.

Since Barack Obama became president, Senate Republicans have increasingly delayed consideration of district court nominees, whereas previously only appeals court and Supreme Court judges could expect a politicized confirmation process.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking GOP senator on the Judiciary Committee since 2011, has claimed that Republicans are voting on more judicial nominees this year than Senate Democrats did early in President George W. Bush’s second term. However, Bannon’s research confirms earlier analysis showing that Obama’s judicial nominees are waiting longer for votes than Bush’s did. Four and a half years into Bush’s presidency, the Senate had placed more of his judges on the bench. Unfortunately, Obama has also been “slower to nominate” judges than either Bush or President Bill Clinton.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The ruling means that legally married gay and lesbian couples in Iowa and elsewhere will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law. More than 200 Congressional Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, signed an amicus curiae brief urging justices to strike down the key provision of the DOMA, adopted in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support.  

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that backers of California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal a lower-court ruling striking down that ballot initiative. The decision means that LGBT couples will be allowed to marry in California. It does not affect other states’ statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Braley and Loebsack were among scores of Congressional Democrats who recently posed for the “NoH8” campaign supporting marriage equality and opposing Prop 8.

Excerpts from the DOMA decision and Iowa reaction to today’s rulings are after the jump. I will update this post as needed. At this writing, most of the Congressional delegation has not publicly commented on the Supreme Court decisions.

I also enclose below Democratic State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad’s reaction to yesterday’s disgraceful 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010, the Iowa legislature adopted and Governor Chet Culver signed into law new campaign finance disclosure requirements for corporate organizations that make independent expenditures for or against Iowa candidates. At the time, I thought those new rules were court-proof, because the law only called for disclosure and did not restrict the size of corporate contributions to independent expenditure campaigns. Nevertheless, conservative “campaign-finance crusader” Jim Bopp filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Iowa Right to Life, claiming that Iowa’s rules were unconstitutional for several reasons. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pratt dismissed that lawsuit, but Iowa Right to Life appealed the ruling.

On June 13, a panel for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously upheld part of Iowa’s law on disclosure reports for independent campaign expenditures by a corporation. However, the court struck down rules demanding ongoing reports from groups that have made independent expenditures. Follow me after the jump for links and commentary about the ruling, which will affect next year’s election campaigns in Iowa.

During the 2011 legislative session, Iowa House Republicans approved a ban on most abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Several attempts by Republicans to bring that bill to the floor in the Iowa Senate failed. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal warned that the House legislation “invites a very serious court challenge” and violates a woman’s “right to make her own personal, private decision about abortion without the interference of politicians.” After the original bill died in the upper chamber, the Iowa House passed an even more restrictive ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation (which is equivalent to about 18 weeks post-fertilization). Governor Terry Branstad supports efforts to ban abortion after 20 weeks in Iowa, but as long as the Iowa Senate remains under Democratic control, such legislation will not advance here.

Many other states have passed versions of a ban on late-term abortions. Yesterday a Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court panel struck down the law Arizona adopted in 2012. The three judges (including one conservative appointed by a Republican president) agreed that the law violates a woman’s constitutional rights.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the majority and concurring opinions. Assuming the state of Arizona appeals, this case could lead to the most important U.S. Supreme Court ruling on abortion in a decade.

cross-posted with permission from State Representative Mary Wolfe’s blog

There have been many questions/concerns raised by the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sallee v. Stewart, in which the Court was asked to interpret Iowa’s Recreational Land Use Immunity doctrine. Like most of my colleagues, I’ve read the relevant court cases and studied the applicable statutes, and I’ve reviewed House File 605, the Farm Bureau’s proposed bill intended to fix the “crisis” allegedly created by the Sallee ruling – and like many others, I’ve concluded that the actual impact of the Sallee ruling on Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine is minimal, and that the Farm Bureau’s proposed legislation is an over-reaction to Sallee‘s extremely narrow holding.

In a decision announced on Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the Iowa Department of Public Health to refuse to list a non-birthing lesbian spouse on a child’s birth certificate. Details on this nearly unanimous ruling are after the jump. I was intrigued by how Governor Terry Branstad’s three appointees from 2011 handled this case.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently met with the Chicago Tribune editorial board. When asked about her most controversial ruling in 25 years on the Supreme Court, she named the December 2000 decision in Bush v Gore.

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”

The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

You think?

Bush v Gore permanently lowered my respect for the high court. When I first heard that the Bush campaign appealed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, I laughed. I assumed people like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would stay true to their “states’ rights” ideology and refuse to hear the case, since administering elections is a state issue.

For my money, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote the best commentary on the utterly dishonest Bush v Gore majority ruling: None Dare Call It Treason.

The U.S. Senate voted 96 to 0 today to confirm Jane Kelly as U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Press releases from Senator Tom Harkin and the Iowa Fair Courts Coalition are after the jump, along with Senator Chuck Grassley’s speech on the Senate floor today. He used that opportunity not only to support Kelly’s nomination, but to argue that Democrats and President Barack Obama “should have no complaints [about] the judicial confirmation process.” (I don’t agree with him on that point.) Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today the Blog of Legal Times described a fascinating Grassley connection that helped Kelly’s confirmation move “faster than any other circuit court nominee during the Obama administration.”

The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported last month that Kelly would be “only the second female judge in the history to serve on 8th Circuit and the only public defender to serve on the bench since 1891.” Harkin commented in today’s statement that as a federal public defender, Kelly “will bring a critically important perspective to the Eighth Circuit.” Obama has nominated “the highest percentage of former prosecutors” as federal judges, Harkin noted. Iowa’s Democratic U.S. Senator recommended Kelly for the vacancy last year.

The U.S. Senate voted today to confirm Sally Jewell as the next Secretary of the Interior by 87 votes to 11. Republicans cast all of the votes against Jewell, but Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among the 34 Republicans who supported her confirmation, along with Senator Tom Harkin and the rest of the Democratic caucus. Bleeding Heartland posted background on Jewell here.

Yesterday, Grassley was one of 34 GOP senators who opposed the confirmation of Patty Shwartz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She was confirmed with the support of Senate Democrats and ten Republicans. President Barack Obama nominated Shwartz way back in October 2011. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted in March 2012 to support her confirmation, over Grassley’s objection. I have not seen a statement this week explaining the senator’s vote against Shwartz, but after the jump I’ve posted his remarks from last year, when the Judiciary Committee was considering her nomination. The American Bar Association unanimously gave Shwartz its highest rating, “well qualified.”

This week Grassley claimed Republicans are allowing votes on more of Obama’s judicial nominees than the Senate did during President George W. Bush’s second term. However, Obama’s judicial nominees are waiting much longer for votes than Bush’s did, and at this point during Bush’s presidency, the Senate had confirmed more of his judges. Obama isn’t helping the situation; he has been “slower to nominate” judges than either Bush or President Bill Clinton.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that Grassley is seeking to reduce the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from eleven to eight. His legislation would prevent President Obama from filling most of the current vacancies on the “second most powerful court” in the country. Last month, Grassley and fellow Republicans filibustered a highly-qualified nominee for the D.C. Circuit court.

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? Four years ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court announced its unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien, striking down our state’s Defense of Marriage Act. After the jump I’ve posted some links about that case, marriage equality in general, and today’s Iowa Governors Conference on LGBTQ Youth.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The return of Iowa wildflower Wednesday is probably still a couple of weeks away. By the first week of April 2012, many spring wildflowers were already in bloom (far earlier than usual), but even the bloodroot isn’t out yet where I live.  

March 29, 2013 

The ACLU of Iowa and Iowa LULAC today restarted their lawsuit to stop the Secretary of State from an unreliable process to remove registered voters if they cannot prove their U.S. citizenship within a limited time.

The ACLU of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed papers in Polk County District court today, renewing their lawsuit against two rules filed by the Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz that the groups say wrongly restrict voting by qualified Iowans.

One rule would have allowed unverified challenges to another voter’s qualifications. The Secretary of State eventually voluntarily withdrew that rule. The other rule, which took effect yesterday, allows the Secretary of State to run Iowa’s registered voters through numerous federal databases to attempt to generate a list of non-citizens.

The ACLU and LULAC say that the Secretary of State was never authorized by the Iowa legislature to put his Voter Removal Rule forward, and that it will erroneously deprive qualified citizens in Iowa of their right to vote. The ACLU and LULAC cite problems with running the registered voter lists through the federal SAVE system, as well as a lack of procedural checks to protect voters once they are identified.

http://www.aclu-ia.org/2013/03/29/aclu-of-iowa-restarts-its-voter-suppression-lawsuit-against-the-iowa-secretary-of-state/

<!–EndFragment–>

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. Unlike yesterday’s hearing on California’s same-sex marriage ban, this case will affect many Iowans directly. The court’s ruling on DOMA will determine whether thousands of married LGBT couples in Iowa are eligible for benefits granted to married citizens under federal law.

Lots of links are after the jump, but the enduring sound bite from the day will surely be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comment: “You’re saying […] there are two kinds of marriages, the full marriage, and this sort of skim milk marriage.”

In a voice vote today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved Jane Kelly’s nomination for the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bleeding Heartland posted background on Kelly here. She has been a federal public defender in the Northern District of Iowa since 1994. According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, she would be “the only public defender to serve on the bench since 1891. Pres. Obama has nominated 100 former prosecutors to the federal bench.”

Senator Tom Harkin recommended Kelly for the Appeals Court vacancy. If confirmed, she would be “only the second woman in the Eighth Circuit’s 122-year history to have ever served on the court.” Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has blocked some of Obama’s judicial nominations but supports Kelly. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statement on today’s committee action, prepared statements from Harkin and Grassley for Kelly’s committee hearing on February 27, and a press release from the Iowa Fair Courts Coalition.

The U.S. Senate confirmed John Brennan yesterday as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. A cloture motion on Brennan’s nomination passed by 81 votes to 16. Senator Tom Harkin voted yes, as did all the Senate Democrats and most Republicans. Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 16 Republicans who attempted to block Brennan’s nomination from coming to a vote. Senators then confirmed Brennan by 63 votes to 34. Again, Harkin voted yes, like all but two members of the Senate Democratic caucus. Grassley voted no, as did most of the Senate Republicans. I am disappointed but not surprised that most of the Senate Democrats went along with one of President Barack Obama’s worst cabinet appointments. If a Republican president had nominated someone with Brennan’s record on civil liberties, Democratic senators would have raised more serious questions.

I will update this post if I see any public comments from Harkin or Grassley on the Brennan confirmation vote.

Earlier this week, Grassley and 40 other Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Republicans previously filibustered her nomination in 2011; President Barack Obama renominated her for the same position. Halligan is highly qualified, having argued many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association has lobbied Senate Republicans to oppose her. Grassley has not released any comment explaining his vote against cloture (ending debate) on Halligan’s nomination. After the jump I’ve posted a statement from the Iowa Fair Courts Coalition.

MARCH 22 UPDATE: President Obama withdrew Halligan’s nomination, saying she had requested that action. In a written statement, the president commented, “This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of Senators from expressing their support. I am confident that with Caitlin’s impressive qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction.”

The times they are a-changin’: more than 200 Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate have signed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down the key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  

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

To get the conversation started, I’ve posted some scary or disturbing news after the jump.

President Barack Obama yesterday nominated Jane Kelly to the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal public defender in the Northern District of Iowa was one of two women Senator Tom Harkin recommended for the judgeship.

After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Harkin welcoming Kelly’s nomination. It includes biographical information and notes, “If confirmed, Ms. Kelly would be only the second female judge in the history of the Eighth Circuit, which was established in 1891.” I would add that it’s unusual and encouraging to see a highly-qualified public defender nominated to become a U.S. Appeals Court judge.

I have not yet seen any statement from Senator Chuck Grassley on Kelly’s nomination. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has a lot of influence over how and whether judicial nominations are considered. I’ve also posted below a joint press release from several Iowa progressive groups urging Grassley to work to confirm Kelly quickly.