Iowa Department of Public Health having trouble with marriage equality

by: desmoinesdem

Fri May 14, 2010 at 19:55:17 PM CDT

Based on advice from the Iowa Attorney General's Office, the IDPH contends that the non-birthing spouse must complete the adoption process in order to be listed as the second parent on a child's birth certificate, even if the child was born after the parents were legally married. I'm a big fan of Attorney General Tom Miller, but his office blew it on this one.  

One simple question, three non-answers on marriage

by: desmoinesdem

Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:25:38 AM CDT

In contrast, almost every question the panelists asked during Saturday's debate was direct and addressed an issue the next governor of Iowa will face. Here are a few examples:

"Can you name one service government provides today that it should stop providing in the interest of saving the budget?"

"If elected, will you continue to support the Iowa Values Fund, the business grant and loan program created during the Vilsack administration, and also the renewable energy grant program established by Governor Culver known as the Iowa Power Fund?"

"Is there a role that government should play in limiting premium increases by Iowa insurance companies?"

"Do you believe that obesity is a problem that should be addressed through government action such as limiting unhealthy ingredients in food?"

Mind you, asking a direct, unambiguous question doesn't guarantee that you'll get a straight answer from a politician. Look what happened when Dorman asked the Republicans, "Can you identify one tangible way Iowa has been harmed during a full year of legal same-sex marriage?"

Marriage equality anniversary thread

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:00:44 PM CDT

Although all three Republican candidates for governor say they want to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, marriage equality is probably here to stay. Conservative groups are not urging voters to pass a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which would be the quickest path to amend the Iowa constitution. Bob Vander Plaats probably won't win the Republican nomination for governor, much less the November election, and even if he did, his plan to halt gay marriage by executive order is a non-starter.

That leaves the self-styled defenders of traditional marriage one path: approving an amendment restricting marriage rights in two separately elected Iowa legislatures, then convincing a majority of Iowans to vote for that amendment (in November 2014 at the earliest).

Republicans have an outside shot at winning a majority in the Iowa House in 2010, but they have virtually no chance of taking back the Iowa Senate this year. Democrats currently hold a 32-18 majority in the upper chamber. A net gain of four or five seats is the best-case scenario for the GOP, and I consider a net gain of two or three seats much more likely. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal in a position to block all efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a floor vote during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.

Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts claims he could force Democrats to allow a marriage vote. His plan is to veto all legislation, including the state budget, until the Iowa House and Senate have voted on a marriage amendment. I doubt a Republican could win that game of chicken even if Governor Chet Culver is defeated this November. Polling indicates that most Iowans are not eager to ban gay marriage and think the state legislature has more important things to do. Anyway, the most likely Republican nominee, Terry Branstad, has an incoherent position on gay marriage and probably would make only a token effort to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Share any thoughts about same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread.

Speaking of civil rights, some reports indicate that the House of Representatives will vote this year to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has ended far too many military careers. Click here to read a moving open letter to President Obama from an Air Force major who was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Varnum v Brien anniversary thread and linkfest

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:42:10 PM CDT

Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.  

Iowa Republicans, make up your minds about "activist judges"

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:16:12 AM CDT

"We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they are accountable to the people of Iowa," said Roberts, who has made restoring the role of the people in state government a centerpiece of his campaign. "The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the legislature and of the people of Iowa."

Now that Congress has approved a health insurance reform bill Republicans don't like, some GOP politicians have decided judicial activism isn't so bad after all. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats pledged to "invoke the Constitution's 10th Amendment to protect Iowans from new federal mandates" on health care. Rod Roberts followed Vander Plaats' lead:

Roberts said that if the federal government passes a nationalized health care plan that conflicts with the Roberts Amendment, as governor he will file a lawsuit in federal court against President Obama to have the plan struck down as a violation of Iowans' Tenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government (such as the regulation of health insurance) are reserved for the states.

Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad also supported the idea of using the courts to nullify the will of Congress: "Given the massive scope and effect of this [health insurance reform] bill, it is likely that various provisions will be challenged in the courts. Those challenges are both timely and appropriate."

Any constitutional lawyer can tell you that the U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Law professor Mark Hall explains in detail here why constitutional arguments against an individual mandate to purchase health insurance are wrong. As for the broader 10th amendment claim that the constitution doesn't empower the federal government to regulate health insurance, Hall notes, "Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution's 'Commerce Clause' to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy."

Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh likewise does not find the constitutional arguments against health insurance reform convincing:

While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of "commerce" as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)

The U.S. Supreme Court could overrule the will of Congress on health insurance reform only by reversing several decades of precedent about the definition of commerce. That's textbook "judicial activism," but it's ok with some Iowa Republicans if it achieves the political end they are seeking.

By the way, Vander Plaats claims that as governor, he could issue an executive order halting same-sex marriages in Iowa. I wonder if he also thinks President Barack Obama could issue an executive order overturning a possible Supreme Court ruling against health insurance reform.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum considers prospects for a lawsuit challenging the individual mandate to buy health insurance. He makes the same point about Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce and adds,

What's more, the penalties for not buying insurance are tax penalties, and if anything, Congress has even wider scope in the tax area than in the commerce area. The Supreme Court has frequently ruled that Congress can pass tax laws that essentially force people to do things that Congress doesn't have the direct power to require.

[...]here's the thing: if the Supreme Court decided to overturn decades of precedent and strike down the mandate even though Kevin Drum says they shouldn't (hard to imagine, I know), the insurance industry will go ballistic. If they're required to cover all comers, even those with expensive pre-existing conditions, then they have to have a mandate in order to get all the healthy people into the insurance pool too. So they would argue very persuasively that unless Congress figures out a fix, they'll drive private insurers out of business in short order. And that, in turn, will almost certainly be enough incentive for both Democrats and Republicans to find a way to enforce a mandate by other means. If necessary, there are ways to rewrite the rules so that people aren't literally required to get insurance, but are incentivized so strongly that nearly everyone will do it. As an example, Congress might pass a law making state Medicaid funding dependent on states passing laws requiring residents to buy insurance. Dependent funding is something Congress does routinely, and states don't have any constitutional issues when it comes to requiring residents to buy insurance. They all do it with auto insurance and Massachusetts does it with health insurance.

Like Drum, I view these proposed legal challenges as Republican posturing rather than a serious threat to nullify the law Obama signed this morning.

Iowa Chief Justice: retention elections will test commitment to impartial judiciary

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 14:50:34 PM CST

Judges do not campaign actively for retention, but today Ternus commented on the upcoming elections during an Iowa Public Radio appearance. (continues after the jump)

Kent Sorenson wants to bring back Iowa Supreme Court elections (updated)

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:10:00 PM CST

Republicans Dwayne Alons and Jason Schultz joined Sorenson in introducing House Joint Resolution 2013 this week. It would amend the constitution to require Supreme Court justices to be elected to six-year terms. Lower-court judges would continue to be appointed, as they have been since Iowa approved a constitutional amendment in 1962 to eliminate judicial elections. Under the current system, the governor appoints district and Supreme Court judges from lists of nominees submitted by judicial nominating commissions.

Other social conservatives have vowed to defeat the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention in 2010 because of last year's Varnum v Brien ruling, which cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Iowa. But even that isn't good enough for Sorenson and his allies. They are so upset about one court ruling that they would toss out a method for selecting judges which has worked well for nearly a half-century. The Des Moines-based American Judicature Society has plenty of resources on the importance of judicial independence and the benefits of a merit-based system over judicial elections. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United case lifted restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections, providing another reason not to mess with Iowa's judicial selection process.

Sorenson's constitutional amendment probably won't go anywhere, but he may use the proposal as a rallying cry in his campaign against Staci Appel in Iowa Senate district 37 this year. Appel's husband, Brent Appel, is an Iowa Supreme Court justice. He is not up for retention this November.

UPDATE: Via the latest from Todd Dorman I learned that State Representative Rod Roberts, a Republican candidate for governor, has introduced his own constitutional amendment:

His proposal, House Joint Resolution 2012, calls for appointing nine justices - one from each judicial district and one at-large. It would require justices to continue to live in the district as long as they sit on the court.

"Even people in the legal profession tell me this would help the court get connected at the grass roots level," he said.

Dorman comments,

Justices should answer to the state constitution, the law and precedent, not to public sentiment. They're appointed through a bipartisan, drama-free process that focuses on their experience and qualifications. They already face regular retention votes.

So explain to me why we would throw out that system in favor of open electioneering. It's a horrible idea.

And picking them by geography instead of qualifications isn't much better.

How is this stuff conservative?

You don't want judges who "legislate from the bench," so you elect them just like legislators?

The Iowa Bar Association opposes the proposals from Sorenson and Roberts.

Year in review: Iowa politics in 2009 (part 1)

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 08:08:56 AM CST

The governor's race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state's major events of the decade.

After the jump I've posted links to Bleeding Heartland's coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn't manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent's compilation of "Iowa's most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009," as well as that blog's review of "stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010."

Iowa NAACP head needs a history lesson

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 08:25:47 AM CDT

Vander Plaats was the front-runner in the Republican field until former Governor Terry Branstad entered the race. Ratliff said Vander Plaats' position on same-sex marriage rights was "an important factor" in his endorsement.

Iowans not eager to overturn marriage equality

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 08:58:44 AM CDT

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. [...]

The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. [...]

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April's unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don't care much or are not sure.

Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.

Selzer and Co. surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

I recommend clicking through to view the chart showing the breakdown by party affiliation on this issue. Among independents, only 44 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court's decision that cleared the way for marriage equality, while 32 percent "don't care much" and 22 percent either favor or strongly favor it.

Many Iowa Republicans are convinced that they can gain traction in next year's legislative elections by bashing statehouse Democrats who oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, the Republican candidate fell just short in the recent special election in Iowa House district 90, even though the National Organization for Marriage poured nearly $90,000 into ads supporting the Republican because of the marriage issue. (The NOM plans to be involved in next year's Iowa elections as well.)

A poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog in July indicated that two-thirds of Iowans wanted a public vote on same-sex marriage, but that poll framed the question as follows: "The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, do you think Iowa voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution or is the issue best decided by the Supreme Court?" Todd Dorman was right to point out that it would have been more enlightening to ask respondents how they would vote on a marriage amendment.

The Register's poll could strengthen the hand of Republicans like Doug Gross, who have been saying all year that the GOP should downplay divisive social issues and focus on the economy in next year's elections. On the other hand, 51 percent of Republicans surveyed by Selzer and Co strongly oppose the Supreme Court decision, while 11 percent just oppose the decision, 27 percent don't care much and only 10 percent either favor or strongly favor it. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats promises to issue an executive order on day one halting same-sex marriages if elected, and he will find plenty of support among the Republican rank and file.

I've been telling my friends, "Don't worry, be happy," since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision in April. I figured that with each passing year, more Iowans would understand that no one is harmed and thousands are helped by granting gays and lesbians civil marriage rights. I also felt that Republicans would not be able to win many races on this issue in 2010, let alone in subsequent years. Still, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a poll this year showing majority support for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Learning that a constitutional amendment on marriage lacks majority support even now makes me that much more optimistic. (UPDATE: Forgot to add that Iowa has a lengthy constitutional amendment process.)

Now it's imperative to defeat Proposition 1 in Maine this November. Please help if you can.

Branstad for governor? Not so fast

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:34:33 AM CDT

I'm skeptical about a Branstad resurgence. First, I doubt he would give up his prominent, lucrative job as president of Des Moines University. Second, the Iowa electorate has become much more Democratic than it was in Branstad's day.

Third, I don't think the Republican field would clear for him. I am not convinced the evangelical conservatives who were his base of support in the 1980s and 1990s will remain loyal. Branstad appointed two of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who cleared the way for same-sex marriage rights, including Mark Cady, who wrote the Varnum v Brien decision. Moreover, he declined to condemn those justices after the ruling.

Most important, Branstad nearly lost his own party's primary as a three-term incumbent in 1994. There's a reason so many elected Republicans, like then State Auditor Richard Johnson, backed Congressman Fred Grandy in that race. The phrases "two sets of books" and "cooking the books" may ring a bell with Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age.

I don't expect Branstad to run for governor again, but if he does he should expect his management of state finances to come under a lot more scrutiny. Likely candidate Chris Rants told The Iowa Republican blog this month,

I am worried that we are backsliding to those days in the late 80's when the governor and legislature fudged the numbers to look good for an election. They didn't abide by generally acceptable accounting principles. That led to bigger problems and late payments to local school districts.

It's frankly a joke to portray Branstad as more fiscally responsible than Culver. Branstad managed this state during tough times by keeping two sets of books and digging us into a hole. Under Culver, Iowa still has a healthy reserve fund and a AAA bond rating. He has made budget cuts when necessary and is ready to do so again if need be after final revenue figures come in.

Share any thoughts about the governor's race in this thread.

UPDATE: Fascinating comment thread under Craig Robinson's post at The Iowa Republican. It didn't take long for someone to post news clippings from 1994 about Branstad "cooking the books" and Johnson endorsing Grandy. Also, I noticed a few social conservatives predicting that people would not abandon Vander Plaats for Branstad.  

Don't make gay spouses adopt their own children

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:30:31 AM CDT

[Attorney General Tom] Miller's lawyers based their advice on the fact that the decision made no direct reference to the Iowa Code section on birth certificates, which refers to "husband." "The Supreme Court ruling "does not authorize an interpretation of chapter 144 (vital statistics, including birth certificates) in a manner that would allow for a same-sex spouse to be automatically listed as the parent on birth certificates," they said. And, insultingly and gratuitously, they added: "Using the adoption process is the best way to protect the interests and rights of all parties involved."

How shameful.

For more than 125 years, the Iowa Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of the woman and her spouse - even if the woman was pregnant by another man at the time of the wedding, even if the woman was impregnated by another man during her marriage. "The law presumes that a child born in wedlock is legitimate," the court said in 1882. More than 100 years later, in 1995, the court ruled in a similar case that "the state's interests involve preserving the integrity of the family [and] the best interests of the child...." Yes, "the best interests of the child."

The Iowa Code couldn't be clearer. Section 252 says: "A child or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of such child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony, shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of such marriage." And the Supreme Court says gays can marry one another.

Go read Gartner's whole piece, which highlights key passages from the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v Brien. He also points out that adopting a child involves significant time and expense.

I'm surprised that the Attorney General's Office would give the Iowa Department of Public Health bad advice on this matter. Tom Miller strongly praised the court's "clear and well-reasoned opinion" the day Varnum v Brien was announced. Miller's advice helped persuade Governor Chet Culver not to seek to overturn the ruling. Assistant Attorney General Heather Adams wrote a memo reminding all Iowa county recorders that they must comply with the decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Iowa Department of Public Health should give married spouses equal protection under the law.

When wingnuts collide

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:20:43 AM CDT

After the jump I have a few thoughts on the spat between King and wingnut Bill Salier, best known for almost beating establishment favorite Greg Ganske in the 2002 Republican Senate primary.

Steve King is robocalling Iowans again on gay marriage

by: desmoinesdem

Sun May 31, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM CDT

I have not heard the call, but from what others have told me, it sounds like this fake survey is designed to raise money, identify and mobilize supporters. (In contrast, a "push-poll" usually seeks to spread information that would change people's minds about an issue or candidate.) The details are after the jump.

Iowa recognizes all California marriages

by: desmoinesdem

Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:41:18 PM CDT

Couples left in legal limbo should be aware that the state of Iowa recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California last year. Moving halfway across the country clearly won't be an option for everyone, but Iowa has a low cost of living and a good quality of life (more affordable housing, relatively low rates of crime and unemployment, short commutes, and decent public schools in many communities).

Of course, couples from California or anywhere else can still come to Iowa to get married.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect on April 27, hundreds of same-sex couples have been married here. More than half of Iowa's 99 counties have issued at least one marriage license to a same-sex couple. Despite an extensive petition drive to pressure county recorders, no county recorder has refused to issue a marriage license to a couple seeking one.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling will not get anywhere. I explain why after the jump.

No discipline for state senator who sought to pressure county recorders

by: desmoinesdem

Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:40:14 AM CDT

voted unanimously Tuesday to dismiss an ethics complaint against a lawmaker who had encouraged county recorders to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. On his Web site, Bartz had encouraged Iowans who also are opposed to same-sex marriage to sign petitions asking county recorders to not issue same-sex licenses.

Members of the ethics committee said Bartz was simply exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech, and voted 6-0 to reject the complaint after a short discussion.

Last month I posted the full text of the petition along with the language Bartz used to promote the drive on his official Iowa Senate website.

Ed and Lynn Fallon of I'M for Iowa filed the ethics complaint against Bartz, saying he should not have encouraged elected county officials to fail to comply with an Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

The petition drive did not succeed in blocking same-sex marriages; so far no county recorders in Iowa have refused to issue marriage licenses. On the other hand, I read that some petitions containing some 17,000 signatures were delivered to county recorders the week of April 27.

If even a fraction of the people who collected signatures followed Bartz's instructions to send copies to Chuck Hurley's Iowa Family Policy Center, then the drive will turn out to be a list-building bonanza for that organization.

At least two Iowa Republicans understand judicial review

by: desmoinesdem

Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:57:40 PM CDT

Today I need to give credit to former Governor Terry Branstad and his chief of staff, Doug Gross, because they went on record supporting the concepts of separation of powers and judicial review, even though they sometimes disagree with the Iowa Supreme Court's decisions.

The details are after the jump.

Let's try this one more time

by: desmoinesdem

Tue May 05, 2009 at 00:56:42 AM CDT

GOP moderates led by Doug Gross have been warning that Republican candidates won't win in 2010 if gay marriage is their only campaign issue. But I haven't heard anyone challenge the assertion by many conservatives that the Supreme Court's decision is just an opinion with no legal force.

Since no Republican has stepped up to the plate, I'm offering a brief lesson on judicial review after the jump.

Anti-gay marriage group targets Iowa Republican Senate leader

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 18:48:12 PM CDT

Instead, I found a flier comparing Iowa Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley to a "chicken," because he "refuses to do what it takes to get a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment." McKinley asked Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal to co-sponsor a leadership bill with him so that the Senate could debate a constitutional amendment on marriage, but Gronstal refused.

Public Advocate of the US, a right-wing group based in Falls Church, Virginia, paid for this flier, according to text at the bottom. That group's president, Eugene Delgaudio, has been using direct mail and "conservative political street theater" to advance anti-gay views for years. I wouldn't be surprised to see him show up in Iowa on Monday, when same-sex marriages become legal.

The stated goal of the flier is to generate phone calls urging McKinley to take bolder action on the Iowa Marriage Amendment, but I wonder whether the real purpose is to support different leadership for the Senate Republican caucus. McKinley was elected Senate Republican leader last November on a pledge "to rebuild this party from the ground up," but according to the Iowa Republican blog, some conservatives,

including WHO Radio talk show host Steve Deace, don't think that the Republicans in the Senate have done all they can since they have not made a motion to suspend the Senate rules and force the Democrats' hand.

Republican State Representative Chris Rants tried to attach a marriage amendment to unrelated legislation in the House and forced a vote on suspending House rules. Only two House Democrats, Geri Huser and Dolores Mertz, voted with Republicans on the procedural motion. Presumably Republican candidates and interest groups will attack the other 54 House Democrats next fall for not backing up Rants.

Alternatively, the flier could be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to raise the profile (and mailing list) of Delgaudio's group in Iowa. Does any Bleeding Heartland reader know whether Public Advocate of the US has ties to any rival of McKinley's within the Republican Party of Iowa?

I don't know whether this piece is being circulated in conservative neighborhoods across Iowa, or mainly in heavily Republican Pella. If you've seen it in your town or county, please post a comment in this thread or send an e-mail to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

The full text of the one-sided, 8 1/2 by 11-inch flier is after the jump.

UPDATE: McKinley criticized the Iowa Senate's failure to take up the marriage amendment in his closing remarks on the final day of the 2009 session.

Iowa Senate Republicans push petition drive to pressure county recorders

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 14:12:50 PM CDT

We already knew that prominent Iowa Republicans have trouble with the concept of judicial review, but Senator Merlin Bartz, who tried last week to give county recorders the right to ignore the law, has taken it to a new level.

Senator Bartz's page on the Iowa Senate Republicans website is promoting a petition being circulated by Chuck Hurley's Iowa Family Policy Center.

The disgraceful details are after the jump.