Bleeding Heartland - crime

Warren County rejects casino, Johnson County rejects justice center (updated)

desmoinesdem — Wed, 08 May 2013 11:45:00 GMT

While politics-watchers across the country were focused on creepy adulterer Mark Sanford's victory in the special election to represent South Carolina's first Congressional district, two important local elections took place in Iowa yesterday.

Warren County voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed casino for Norwalk (just south of Des Moines). A simple majority was needed to approve the gambling referendum, but "no" carried the day with 60 percent support, 6,545 votes to 4,327. Click here (pdf) for unofficial precinct-level results. I know many Democrats backed the Norwalk casino, and local officials said it would help create jobs and reverse some of the economic "drain" from Warren County to Polk County. If I lived in Warren County, I would have voted no for the same reasons discussed in this post on the proposed Cedar Rapids casino. After the jump I've posted excerpts from a compelling commentary by Tom Coates, president of Consumer Credit of Des Moines. Meta observation: this will probably be the only time Bleeding Heartland ever links approvingly to the FAMiLY Leader's website.

Johnson County voters rejected a proposed bond issue to build a new justice center. The proposal was revised somewhat after the previous referendum failed in November 2012. Although a 54 percent majority voted yes yesterday, a 60 percent super-majority is needed for bond issues to pass. Unofficial precinct-level results show 7,394 yes votes to 6,226 no. Percentage-wise, that's a bigger loss for the yes camp than the last referendum (when 56 percent voted yes), even though some prominent voices flipped from "no" to "yes" this time around. The total number of votes cast was nearly four times times higher last November, when the justice center was on the presidential election ballot.

John Deeth has blogged extensively on this issue, and I think he made a compelling case for the justice center. Preventing Johnson County from building an adequate facility to house accused criminals is not an effective way to protest Iowa City police practices. There were strange bedfellows in the "no" camp: "People's Republic" lefties and self-styled taxpayer advocacy groups. But I suppose that's no more strange than the FAMiLY Leader and I agreeing on the Warren County gambling referendum.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. For what it's worth, I don't believe the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission would have approved a casino license for Norwalk. The project would have drawn most of its business from the customer base for existing casinos in Altoona and Osceola.
Excerpt from the Norwalk casino editorial by Tom Coates, which also appeared in the Des Moines Register:

During the recent debate over a proposed casino in Warren County and Norwalk, I find a real need to clarify the business model of the "convenience casino". This model is contrasted with the "tourist model" employed by Las Vegas and Atlantic City. The tourist model brings the majority of its' revenues from patrons outside their immediate geographical area. The convenience model employed by all 21 Iowa casinos relies almost entirely on revenues derived from natives who live within the 40 mile radius referred to as their feeder market. Approximately 80% comes from the feeder market.
The reason that this is important to understand is that this 80% represents a cannibalization of existing businesses of all types. The money spent on gambling would otherwise have gone to the purchase of goods and services already offered in the community.
If the effect stopped there it wouldn't be a huge concern, but it doesn't. To more fully understand the convenience casino business model, you must look at what percentage of their handle comes from addicted gamblers. Studies by various researchers have shown 40-50% come from problem and pathological gamblers. The emergence of the addicted gambler is shown by Iowa's timeline prevalence study done in 1989 and again in 1995 after the arrival of casinos. Iowa went from 1.7% of population being problem or pathological to 5.4%. This increase appeared most acutely within the boundaries of the feeder market. Further, the closer the patron resides to the casino, the more likely the occurrence of the addictions.
From 1994 until 2000, my company administered the Iowa gambling hotline, 1-800-BETS-OFF. We witnessed the crisis calls increase from dozens to hundreds a month. These calls were most prevalent in the immediate surrounding areas of casinos.

UPDATE: According to the Des Moines Register,

According to the Warren County auditor's office, Tuesday's turnout was "higher than normal" for a Warren County special election, with nearly 23 percent of Warren's 33,000 registered voters heading to the polls. Another 10 percent cast absentee ballots, for a total turnout approximating one-third.
Tuesday's vote capped a hard-fought election dominated by yard signs, Web videos and direct mailings designed by consultants.
Throughout the campaign, casino backers emphasized the $4.5 million that would be available to schools, communities and local nonprofits. Opponents argued that the societal impacts, such as increased gambling addiction, divorce and bankruptcies, would outweigh any potential benefits a gaming establishment could bring.
Campaign finance numbers show Wild Rose contributed $260,000 to Warren County Citizens for Good Jobs, the campaign committee advocating for the gaming referendum. No Casino Warren, the group speaking out against the proposal, raised nearly $16,000 to fight it. (Opponents used a graphic on their website that accented the last two letters of "casino.")
The gambling measure failed everywhere but in White Breast, a precinct in the southeast corner of the county that on Tuesday was responsible for 147 votes.

Todd Dorman noted in his blog at the Cedar Radids Gazette,

I'm no expert on Warren County politics, but I was surprised by the margin. I figured it would pass. It's almost as if last night's result was the exact opposite of Linn County's March referendum, where gambling was victorious 61-39.
In Warren County, a pile of outside casino money, in this case from from Wild Rose Entertainment, was bet on a yes vote, unlike the $750,000 spent here by existing casinos hoping to defeat gaming. Warren County opponents were led and funded locally, for the most part.
In Linn County, local opponents couldn't distance themselves from a pricey campaign funded almost entirely by those outside casinos. The yes campaign here also was pricey,at $1.5 million, but the bills were paid by local investors.

Warren County has seen rapid exurban growth during the past decade, and socially conservative Republicans have done increasingly well there. In fact, Warren was one of the best counties for Bob Vander Plaats in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, where Terry Branstad carried most of the state. Even though the Iowa House Republicans conceded House district 26 (covering most of Warren County) last fall, Democrat Scott Ourth defeated way-out-there Republican Steve McCoy by only about 52 percent to 48 percent.

The latest county-level voter registration figures from the Iowa Secretary of State's office show that Linn County has 49,666 active registered Democrats, 37,948 Republicans, and 52,303 no-party voters.

Warren County has 9,802 active registered Democrats, 10,524 Republicans, and 10,628 no-party voters.

Speaking of strange bedfellows, Dorman pointed out last week,

In Linn County, Link Strategies was the strategic brains behind Just Say No Casino. In Warren County, Link's outfit is reportedly working for Vote Yes, aka Warren County Citizens for Good Jobs.

Also, the key proponent of the "yes" side in Warren County is a big Republican donor, Gary Kirke. Link Strategies generally works for Democratic clients.

Discussion thread on the Boston Marathon tragedy

desmoinesdem — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:52:00 GMT

Two explosions near the finish line of the Boston Marathon this afternoon killed at least two people and injured at least 90 more. The cause of the explosions is not yet clear. CNN is calling it a "terrorist attack." President Barack Obama will deliver televised remarks shortly. I will update later with more news, but I wanted to put up a post for anyone in the Bleeding Heartland community who wants to discuss the tragedy. Statements released by Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack are after the jump.

UPDATE: At least three are confirmed dead, more than 100 injured. No individual or group has claimed responsibility for the bombs. Two unexploded devices were found elsewhere in Boston.

Organizers of a half-marathon and 5K race in Council Bluffs say the events will take place as scheduled this Sunday, with a "security presence." UPDATE: There will be extra security at a Linn County race this weekend as well.

Contrary to some speculation on twitter, today is not the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. That happened on April 19, 1995.
Statement from Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01):

"I'm shocked and appalled at what transpired today at the Boston Marathon. My thoughts and prayers go out to the runners, volunteers, and spectators involved in this tragic event."

Statement from Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02):

"The events that happened today in Boston are appalling. My thoughts and prayers are with all those injured and the families and loved ones of those who were lost. I would like to thank the first responders, members of the National Guard, and all those who responded and provided assistance to those who needed it. As a nation, we stand with the people of Boston."

Weekend open thread: Dangerous consensus edition

desmoinesdem — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:15:00 GMT

Most political junkies love a good brawl. While Congress-watchers were paying attention to fights this week over the president's proposed budget, confirming federal judges, or tightening up gun ownership regulations, a non-controversial but significant bill zoomed through the U.S. House and Senate.
Niels Lesniewski reported for Roll Call on April 11,

With most of the Senate's attention focused on guns and immigration, the Senate quietly acted to dramatically scale back the reach of the law's most contentious provision. Absent Congressional action or a court order, the law known as the STOCK Act requiring online publication of financial information for a slew of federal employees would take effect next week.
The Senate bill passed Thursday by unanimous consent goes beyond a simple delay. If passed by the House and signed by President Barack Obama, the measure would exclude legislative and executive staffers from having their financial disclosure forms posted on the Internet. The new reporting requirements would still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation.

Congress approved the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act in 2012 to prevent insider trading by members of Congress, other federal officials, and their staffs. Iowa's five U.S. House representatives and two senators all supported the bill.

The drive to repeal disclosure requirements for staff came after a report on the STOCK Act came out in late March:

"Virtually all the cybersecurity, national security, and law enforcement experts interviewed during this study noted that making this information available in this fashion fundamentally transforms the ability (and the likelihood) of others - individuals, organizations, nation-states - to exploit that information for criminal, intelligence, and other purposes," the report said.

Within a few weeks, a bill was drawn up and passed with no hearings, floor debate or roll call votes in the Senate or House. Emily Pierce reported for Roll Call on April 12,

House and Senate leaders were spurred to action by a scathing report detailing the national security dangers that could come from a provision added in the Senate. But instead of touting those reasons, both chambers attempted to keep the process quiet in an apparent attempt to avoid the political vulnerability that could come from instituting less transparency in government.
Both chambers passed the bill by unanimous consent after leaders in both parties and the White House refused to answer CQ Roll Call's questions about the process all week.

Pierce cited a federal court filing, which indicated that President Barack Obama will sign the bill.

I haven't studied the issues surrounding the STOCK Act. This bill may be a reasonable step to address certain problems. By the same token, it could enable the kind of insider dealing that inspired the STOCK Act in the first place. I'm suspicious of legislation that passes without any public debate or a roll call vote that can be pinned on individual members of Congress. As Roll Call reporter Steven Dennis commented, "We've learned one thing Congress can can do with lightning speed, no debate & no actual voting: Repeal a piece of the STOCK Act."

Iowa politics-watchers have been treated to lots of public battles during this legislative session. Despite the intense disagreements over education funding, Medicaid expansion, and confirmation of Board of Regents nominees, the Iowa House and Senate have agreed on some bills with little public debate.

In today's edition of the Sunday Des Moines Register, editors gave a "thistle" to legislators for passing one bill easily this session.

A thistle to the Iowa Legislature for asking a question but ignoring the answer. The House and Senate both passed a bill that increases the penalty for interference with the official duties of a law officer that results in an injury to the officer. The tougher penalty likely will have a disproportionate impact on minorities in Iowa. Lawmakers know that because the Legislative Services Agency was specifically asked to prepare minority-impact statement on the bill due to Iowa's sorry record of locking up blacks at a higher rate proportionally than whites. Yet, the bill sailed through the Senate 50-zip. At least the House seriously debated the race implications before it passed the bill. Lawmakers might as well not ask for reports on the impact of their actions if they do not intend to take seriously the results.

Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson reported on the Iowa House debate over this bill, Senate File 384, on April 11. Click here to find the audio file. The bill passed by 77 votes to 17 (roll call here). You can view the lobbyist declarations on this bill here. The Iowa House Democrats who voted against this bill were Ako Abdul-Samad, Marti Anderson, Deborah Berry, Ruth Ann Gaines, Bruce Hunter, Vicki Lensing, Mary Mascher, Kevin McCarthy, Pat Murphy, Jo Oldson, Rick Olson, Todd Prichard, Sharon Steckman, Todd Taylor, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, Cindy Winckler, and Mary Wolfe.

It's not the first time Iowa lawmakers overwhelmingly agreed on a bad idea. A few years ago, a bill eliminating fines against nursing homes for various health and safety violations passed the Iowa House and Senate unanimously. A couple of years before that, the film tax credit that wasted a lot of state money and eventually led to some criminal indictments passed by 95 votes to 1 in the Iowa House and 48 to 2 in the Iowa Senate.

High-profile, contentious bills grab attention by prompting press conferences, rallies and public hearings. But consensus bills influence public policy too--not always for the better.

Some political scientists believe divided control of a legislature is ideal, because gridlock prevents either party from overreaching. But failure to act on high-profile, contentious bills doesn't mean nothing important is happening. Political consensus is

Iowa Senate confirms Gipp, Lukan, and other Branstad appointees

desmoinesdem — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:35:00 GMT

Yesterday the Iowa Senate unanimously confirmed eleven of Governor Terry Branstad's appointees. You can find the full list of confirmations in the Senate Journal (pdf). The department or agency heads confirmed were:

Chuck Gipp, who has been serving as director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources since last May, shortly after his predecessor resigned;

Steve Lukan, whom Branstad hired to run the governor's Office of Drug Control Policy last June;

Nick Gerhart, who replaced Susan Voss as state insurance commissioner at the end of 2012;

Robert von Wolffradt, whom Branstad appointed as Iowa's chief information officer last May.

Seven of the nominees senators confirmed yesterday will serve on state boards, councils, or commissions, including Joanne Stockdale, a former chair of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry who is one of Branstad's appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission.

House approves Violence Against Women Act: How the Iowans voted

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:20:00 GMT

Chalk up another blow to the "Hastert rule". Today the U.S. House approved the Senate's version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, even though a majority of House Republicans opposed the bill. All 199 Democrats present were part of the 286 to 138 majority supporting the bill, including Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Unburdened by the prospect of a competitive GOP primary for U.S. Senate, Tom Latham (IA-03) was among 87 House Republicans who also voted for the bill. Steve King (IA-04) was one of 138 Republicans to oppose it.

The Violence Against Women Act's previous reauthorization expired at the end of September 2011, but last year the House and Senate failed to reconcile the bills passed in each chamber. (Iowa's representatives split on party lines over the House version of the Violence Against Women Act.) The contentious issues centered on protections for LGBT victims of violence, undocumented immigrants, and a provision granting tribal courts "full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country." House Republican leaders capitulated on those issues by allowing the Senate's bill to pass today.

Loebsack's official comment on today's vote is after the jump. I'll update this post with more political reaction as needed.

UPDATE: Added comments from Braley and King below. Note the priceless double-speak from King: he emphasizes voting for the Violence Against Women Act, not clarifying that he voted for the Republican effort to substitute the House version of the bill, which failed. His press release does not acknowledge that on final passage, King voted against the bill President Barack Obama's going to sign. How many Iowa media will report that King voted for the reauthorization, without realizing that he only voted for the House version? Request to Bleeding Heartland readers who live in IA-04: please let me know if you hear a news story that wrongly implies King voted for the Violence Against Women Act.
Statement from Representative Dave Loebsack, February 28:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed S. 47, The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). After a long delay, the House has finally allowed a vote on the Senate legislation which passed last year and again this year with the support every female Republican Senator and which has the support of over 1,300 domestic violence, sexual assault, and law enforcement groups. Loebsack is a cosponsor of the bipartisan, comprehensive bill.
"I am very pleased that House leaders finally heard the public's call from women and men across the country, along with over a thousand organizations and groups and allowed a vote on the bipartisan, comprehensive Violence Against Women Act. I was proud to stand with my colleagues and cosponsor this important legislation. It was unconscionable that politics held up the reauthorization for as long as it has, it is long overdue. Today is an important day for women and families in Iowa and across the nation."

Statement from Representative Bruce Braley, February 28 (emphasis in original):

Braley Applauds House Passage of Violence Against Women Act Renewal
Bill renews critical domestic violence protections; expands protections for Native American women
Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today applauded the US House's passage of a broadly bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for five more years. Braley signed on last year as the first male cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, and he voted in favor of the bill that passed today.
Today's legislation also strengthens domestic violence protections for Native Americans by expanding the authority of tribes to protect women on their reservations and hold criminal perpetrators accountable.
"Renewing the Violence Against Women Act will help break the cycle of violence against women, and provide victims the care they need," Braley said. "Unfortunately, this type of violence is far too common and transcends politics, race, and religion.
"I'm especially happy about bipartisan improvements to the bill to expand protections of Native American women. Leaders like Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma have put partisanship aside to pass a bill that respects the sovereignty of tribal governments, and protects Native American women. For too long, domestic abusers on tribal lands have taken advantage of legal loopholes to evade accountability for their criminal actions. This bill closes those loopholes and strengthens the law.
"I urge the President to sign the Violence Against Women Act renewal into law as quickly as possible."
First signed into law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act enhanced the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes perpetrated against women and significantly strengthened penalties for offenders convicted of violent crimes against women. The law also required the federal prosecution of interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes, and guaranteed the interstate enforcement of protection orders. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50% since the law was originally enacted.
The Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of 2012; without Congressional action today, its important protections would have continued to lapse.
The legislation has already been approved by the Senate and heads to the President's desk for his signature.

Braley's district includes Iowa's largest Indian reservation in Tama County.

Statement from Representative Steve King, February 28 (emphasis in original):

King Votes in Support of Violence Against Women Act
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement today after voting in support of the House version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 2013 on the House floor. VAWA channels federal funding to programs that aid in helping women who are victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and sexual assault.
"Although I am concerned that this bill was brought to the floor in a manner that undermined work done by the Judiciary Committee, I understand the importance of reauthorizing VAWA to ensure its resources are available to help fight domestic abuse and sexual assault," said King. "I supported this legislation because I know how important it is to empower women in difficult situations. If a woman is at risk, she should know that she has a place to turn for support and assistance. I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it the most."

Youth incarceration down in Iowa, nationally

desmoinesdem — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:05:00 GMT

A new report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that the youth incarceration rate in the U.S. "reached a new 35-year low" in 2010. Iowa was one of 44 states where fewer young people were locked up in 2010 than in 1997.
The full report on "Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States" is here (pdf). Excerpt:

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention show that youth confinement peaked in 1995, at 107,637 in confinement on a single day. Since then the number of youth confined has dropped by nearly 37,000 to 70,792. Over that same period, the rate of youth in confinement dropped by 41 percent, from 381 per 100,000 youth to 225 per 100,000. Moreover, this decline has accelerated in recent years. The annual rate of decline from 2006 to 2010 was roughly three times faster than from 1997 to 2006. Despite this rapid decline, the United States still locks up a larger share of the youth population than any other developed country.

Table 1 on page 3 shows youth confinement total numbers and rates per 100,000 population in every state between 1997 and 2010. In Iowa, 1,065 youths were incarcerated in 1997, a rate of 308 per 100,000 population. In 2010, the total number of incarcerated youths in Iowa had dropped to 738, and the rate had dropped to 227 per 100,000 population. That's a decline of 26 percent, somewhat less than the 37 percent decline in the youth incarceration rate for the country as a whole.

You can view total youth incarceration numbers for each state here. Iowa's 2010 incarceration rate per 100,000 population was 28th out of the 50 states.

Speaking to the Public News Service about the new study,

Michael Crawford, senior associate and fiscal director at the Child and Family Policy Council, credited early intervention for the drop in the numbers nationally and in Iowa.
"We're working with the kids earlier on and preventing where they get to the point where they are actually incarcerated," he said, "so I think that is good sign, but also I think we're just following along the lines of what European countries are doing, just realizing that locking kids up is not a good idea because basically what it does is turn them into criminals as adults."
He said Iowa has developed alternatives to putting young people behind bars, "like after-school programs or mentoring programs, situations where adults or peers can work with the kids to maybe help them stay on track."
The study found that juvenile crime rates have fallen even as the number of youths being incarcerated has dropped.

Finding alternatives to incarceration makes sense for other reasons too. The new report notes on page 2,

In every year for which data are available, the overwhelming majority of confined youth are held for nonviolent offenses. In 2010, only one of every four confined youth was locked up based on a Violent Crime Index offense (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery or sexual assault). At the other end of the spectrum, nearly 40 percent of juvenile commitments and detentions are due to technical violations of probation, drug possession, low-level property offenses, public order offenses and status offenses (activities that would not be crimes for adults, such as possession of alcohol or truancy). This means most confined youth pose relatively low public safety risks.

Researchers have proposed various theories to explain falling crime rates. Lead poisoning may be correlated with juvenile crime, and crime rates have declined as lead has become less prevalent in our environment. Iowa and other states should continue to invest in lead remediation along with early-intervention for behavioral issues.

In 2011, the Annie E. Casey Foundation released a comprehensive report laying out "the case for reducing juvenile incarceration."

Juvenile correctional facilities do not reduce future offending. Instead, they waste taxpayer dollars and frequently expose youth to dangerous and abusive conditions.

Branstad administration's fertilizer plant deal looks even worse

desmoinesdem — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:08:00 GMT

The Egyptian company that received the largest tax incentive package in Iowa history has a subsidiary accused of defrauding the federal government out of $332 million, Ryan Foley reported yesterday in a must-read story for the Associated Press. Excerpts from Foley's article are after the jump, but I strongly recommend reading the whole piece.

Iowa Economic Development Authority Director Debi Durham admitted that the federal lawsuit over improper contracts "did not come up in our due diligence," which is no surprise. Durham's negotiating strategy seems to have been not to question anything Orascom executives told Iowa officials. Although Governor Terry Branstad has claimed Iowa landed the fertilizer plant deal "by the skin of our teeth," evidence suggests Orascom would have invested in Iowa even without generous state and local tax incentives.
From Ryan J. Foley's Associated Press report of February 14, Iowa unaware of company's fraud suit:

Orascom didn't tell Iowa officials - and were not required to - that it is contesting a lawsuit filed by the federal government in 2004 alleging its subsidiary, Virginia-based Contrack International, was part of a joint venture that improperly won $332 million in U.S.-financed construction contracts in Egypt, officials said.
The state's vetting also did not uncover the lawsuit, which seeks to recover funds spent by the U.S. Agency for International Development, Authority Director Debi Durham told the AP.
"It did not come up in our due diligence," she said. "But you're talking about a global corporation that has numerous subsidiaries. I'm not sure how anyone would have found that."
Orascom had disclosed the lawsuit previously, saying it owns 40 percent of a venture being sued by the United States, according to copies of its annual reports reviewed by AP. Orascom says it has "strong substantive reasons" to deny the allegations, and that any resolution shouldn't significantly impact its financial statements.
Former county supervisor Larry Kruse, who helped negotiate the deal, said county officials were also unaware of the lawsuit. [...]
The lawsuit alleges Contrack and two other companies collaborated to win USAID-financed contracts to build Egyptian infrastructure for which they should have been ineligible. They formed a secret, joint venture to conceal that one of the partners was an Egyptian company, the lawsuit alleges, because only U.S. contractors were eligible.
Sawiris, the Orascom CEO who recently appeared with Branstad at the plant's groundbreaking, was designated as Contrack's representative on the venture's executive committee, records show. He has not been personally accused of wrongdoing. Some employees working on the Iowa project are employed by Contrack.
[Democratic State Senator Joe] Bolkcom said state officials conducted an "amateur hour" negotiation with Orascom, and should look into the lawsuit's allegations.

Iowa Democratic Party press release, February 14:

Branstad Administration Asleep at the Switch over Orascom Deal
Branstad Administration did not know company that received $100 million in taxpayer support was under investigation for fraud
DES MOINES -- Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rep. Tyler Olson today called on the Branstad Administration to explain how it didn't know that a subsidiary of Orascom - the recipient of one of the largest state incentive packages in Iowa history - was under investigation by the US Government for fraud.
"It is unbelievable the Branstad Administration did not fully vet Orascom and gave over $100 million in taxpayer money without knowing this information," said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson. "Iowans demand that any time state dollars are given to a company the government does its due diligence. Someone did not find this information and now Iowans are left to wonder what else we don't know about the Governor's deal."
Governor Branstad announced last year that his administration was going to give foreign-based Orascom more than $100 million in state aid to build a new fertilizer plant in Iowa. The $200 million total incentive package was one of the largest corporate aid packages in Iowa history.
The Associated Press revealed today that no one with the Iowa Economic Development Authority knew an Orascom subsidiary was under investigation for defrauding the federal government.

UPDATE: Jennifer Hemmingsen of the Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote a good commentary on this lapse.

The lawsuit is ongoing, and Orascom denies the allegations. The Iowa Fertilizer Company wasn't required to disclose the lawsuit and so they didn't. You can even argue it doesn't matter, that these two small pieces of a vast multinational corporation probably have little to do with each other. But it's troubling the Iowa leaders who signed off on the tax deal didn't know the lawsuit existed at all.
Economic Development Authority Director Debi Durham's explanation doesn't inspire a lot of confidence:
"It did not come up in our due diligence," she told the AP. "But you're talking about a global corporation that has numerous subsidiaries. I'm not sure how anyone would have found that."
The AP did - by taking a look at Orascom's annual report. That sounds like Due Diligence 101.

No kidding.

Harkin yes, Grassley no as Senate passes Violence Against Women Act

desmoinesdem — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:40:00 GMT

The U.S. Senate approved the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization today by 78 votes to 22 (roll call). All of the no votes came from Senate Republicans. It was "deja vu all over again" for Iowa's senators; just like last year, Democrat Tom Harkin voted to reauthorize the VAWA, while Republican Chuck Grassley voted against the bill. Grassley supports most of the VAWA but objects to a few provisions favored by Senate Democrats. Last week the Senate rejected a substitute bill offered by Grassley.

For more details about the reauthorization and how Iowa's senators voted on other proposed amendments, follow me after the jump.
Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act for the first time in 1994. The latest authorization expired at the end of September 2011. The new authorization "would authorize $659 million over five years for the programs, down 17 percent from the last reauthorization in 2005."

Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill,

The Senate-version of VAWA reauthorization extends protections for victims of domestic violence to Native Americans, LGBT victims and immigrants.
"A victim of sexual assault or domestic violence is a victim," said Leahy. "A victim is a victim is a victim and violence is violence is violence." [...]
The Senate bill also prohibits discrimination against LGBT victims in grant programs to help victims, and would let illegal immigrants stay in the country to receive help if they are victims of domestic violence or rape.
VAWA provides grants to victims of domestic violence in order to encourage victims to leave their abusive situations. Some feel they can't get away from their abusers because they might not have another form of family income, so the grants can provide housing assistance and cellphones for victims. Under this reauthorization bill, these programs would continue for another five years.
Democrats pointed out that since original passage in 1994, domestic violence rates have fallen by more than 50 percent. They also said 1-in-4 women are victims of domestic violence.
The Senate bill, S. 47, added the SAFER Act, which helps law enforcement agencies address the more than 300,000 rape kits backlogged, waiting to be analyzed across the country.

I'm seeking clarification about that undocumented immigrant provision, because last week Grassley indicated that it had been removed from this year's version of the VAWA.

Grassley and many other Republicans object to the tribal court provisions of this bill, which would allow Native American women who are victims of sexual violence to have the alleged perpetrators tried in tribal courts, even if the accused are not American Indians.

Yesterday Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma offered an amendment to remove the tribal court section of the bill. But only 39 Republicans voted for his amendment, including Grassley. Harkin was among the 59 senators who rejected that amendment.

The Senate considered several other amendments today before the vote on final passage.

- Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) amendment would reauthorize appropriations for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to combat human trafficking.
- Sen. Rob Portman's (R-Ohio) amendment would ensure that child victims of sex trafficking also have access to grants provided by VAWA, including educational services aimed to protect young victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
- Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) amendment is a technical correction that would clarify that in Alaska, Native American tribal jurisdiction would be for the Metla Katla tribe, which is the only tribe with land in Alaska despite other tribes residing in the state.
- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendment would consolidate duplicative programs within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Coburn said his amendment would save at least $600 million that could be used to more quickly resolve rape cases by addressing the backlog of rape kit testing.
- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendment would encourage states to test convicted rapists for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) so that victims know if they need to seek treatment. If states refused to make such an adjustment to their laws, they would receive 20 percent less in VAWA grants. The amendment would also help provide the necessary treatment to the victims if they were at risk of infection.

Murkowski's amendment passed by voice vote today, and Portman's amendment passed by a rare 100 to 0 roll call vote.

Leahy's amendment passed by 93 votes to 5, with both Grassley and Harkin voting yes. I have no idea why five Republicans opposed that amendment, but for the record, they were Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Tom Coburn and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

The Coburn amendment on consolidating what he called duplicative programs failed with only 46 yes votes and 53 "nays." Grassley supported that amendment, while Harkin opposed it.

The last Coburn amendment failed by a similar 43 to 57 vote. Again, Grassley voted yes, and Harkin voted no.

Harkin co-sponsored the VAWA reauthorization and released this statement today:

"This issue is seemingly nonpartisan - a critical effort to give law enforcement and victims' services the tools they need to prevent domestic violence and protect women in Iowa and across the country. Yet despite the progress in moving this bill through the Senate, it has languished in the House over political objections. What my colleagues should recognize is that it is an outrage when any person is a victim of domestic violence. I urge the House, under Republican leadership, to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan bill because all individuals deserve protection of the law."

I haven't seen any new statement from Grassley about his votes, but I'll update this post as needed.

The LGBT advocacy group One Iowa sharply criticized Grassley in this press release today:

(Des Moines, IA)-Today Senator Chuck Grassley joined 21 other Senators in voting against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA is a federal law that provides resources and funding for programs and services to those affected by domestic violence, including transitional and legal assistance, law enforcement training, hotlines, and more. The bill provides specific protections for same-sex partners and LGBT survivors of domestic abuse in spite of federal law that continues to deny recognition to same-sex couples.
Earlier this month, Senator Grassley introduced sweeping amendments to VAWA that stripped protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) survivors, along with undocumented workers, and survivors living on tribal lands. Today, VAWA passed the Senate with a vote of 78 to 22. The bill now heads to the United States House of Representatives for a vote.
In response to Senator Grassley's vote against VAWA and his proposed amendments to this bill, One Iowa Executive Director Donna Red Wing issued the following statement:
"One Iowa is paying close attention to the vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act because the bill provides crucial protections for members of the LGBT community and recognition of the sometimes painful realities that same-sex couples face. Senator Grassley attempted to strip the most vulnerable members of our society from the bill, and was not successful, so he outright opposed the legislation. As an organization committed to justice, we will not forget his egregious actions and his blatant disregard for the safety of LGBT people, including many Iowans. We now look to our Representatives in the House for leadership and will take note of their votes on this important piece of legislation."

UPDATE: Grassley never did released a statement after this bill passed, but here's the statement he delivered on the Senate floor when the chamber took up the bill last week.

The Motion to Proceed to the Violence Against Women Act
Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
The Motion to Proceed to the Violence Against Women Act
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Mr. President, there has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes men, has been beneficial to our country.
I support many of the provisions in the majority bill. There are consolidations of grants, cyberstalking, rural programs, assistance for individuals with disabilities, older victims, housing protections, and numerous others that I wholeheartedly support.
There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in S. 47.
The process on VAWA in the 112th Congress was very disappointing. Previously, VAWA was reauthorized unanimously. When new provisions were added, they were consensus items. The law was then reauthorized by consensus.
Something similar could have happened again. But it didn't. New provisions were forced into the bill. Some were controversial. Some raised serious constitutional concerns. But those on the other side insisted on these provisions without any change and refused to compromise.
It appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need.
Last Congress, both the Republican leader and myself offered that the Senate consent to striking a provision that violated the Constitution's Origination Clause and then proceeding to conference. The majority spurned those efforts on both occasions. Yet today, S. 47 has removed the provision that raised the blue slip problem with the House.
It does this only a few months after the majority refused to drop it and proceed to conference. The willingness of the majority today to eliminate that unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill last year. That is a terrible disappointment.
It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is, various groups will be excluded from protections under the law.
Current law protects all victims.
Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every member of the Senate who was a member of this body when the Violence Against Women Act last was reauthorized voted for that bill. Neither Vice President Biden nor any other senator passed a discriminatory bill then.
It is not the case that unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists without any compromise whatsoever that any groups will be excluded.
Mr. President, the key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts.
That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts. We should focus on providing needed services to Native American women. S. 47 makes political statements and expounds on Native American sovereignty.
It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women, while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens.
Even the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions with the tribal provisions in this bill.
I hope that whatever the Senate might do today, that negotiations on these questions will continue.
I'm confident that if we can reach agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured, allowing a bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.

How long will Iowa Republicans stand by Kent Sorenson?

desmoinesdem — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:46:14 GMT

State Senator Kent Sorenson has made news lately leading the charge to restore the death penalty for some crimes in Iowa. I wonder whether that popular cause will be enough to save his political career, in light of recent claims by Republicans who have worked closely with him.
On Friday, The Iowa Republican blog reported on a sworn affidavit from Eric Woolson, who managed Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign in Iowa during 2011. Sorenson was the state chair for Bachmann's campaign for much of that year before jumping ship to Ron Paul.

In his affidavit, Woolson corroborated former staffer Barb Heki's claim that Sorenson stole a valued e-mail list from her computer. The Bachmann campaign used the list to contact members of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, a non-profit group uniting mostly socially conservative parents.

NBC News also obtained a copy of Woolson's affidavit. Heki is suing Bachmann for President and several other former senior staffers and consultants. Woolson was one of the named defendants but "has been removed from the suit," according to Kevin Hall of The Iowa Republican. He summarized more details from Woolson's sworn affidavit, indicating that Woolson found out Sorenson took the e-mail list on November 10, 2011, and overheard Bachmann and Heki discussing the incident on January 4, 2012. Heki has said Bachmann told her that Sorenson took the list.

The Urbandale police department is investigating the theft of the list, and Woolson has spoken with the lead investigator. Even if no criminal charges are filed in that case, Heki's civil lawsuit will likely produce more damaging publicity about Sorenson.

Last month, a former consultant for Bachmann's presidential campaign asserted in a Federal Elections Commission complaint that Bachmann For President paid Sorenson "$7,500 a month through a third party in an effort to disguise payments." Iowa legislators are not allowed to be paid by outside political campaigns. If the allegations are accurate, Sorenson earned more working for Bachmann than he received as an Iowa senator ($25,000 annual salary, plus per diem during the legislative session).

Sorenson "vehemently" denies any wrongdoing. For now, the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee has not taken any action against him. By statute, that committee includes three Democrats and three Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised to see members give Sorenson a pass on concealing payments from a presidential campaign, since technically, Sorenson was paid by a Colorado-based firm. (Sorenson denies receiving compensation from the company mentioned in the FEC complaint.)

A credible accusation of theft is something different. Woolson has been around Iowa politics for a long time. Heki may be able to provide other corroborating witnesses in her civil suit.

Sorenson has faced criminal charges before, but has said, "At that point in my life, I was a different person." His criminal record was not widely known during his 2008 campaign for the Iowa House, nor did Democrats make it a central issue during the 2010 Iowa Senate race between Sorenson and Democratic incumbent Staci Appel. Sorenson's official page on the Iowa Senate Republican website doesn't include any biographical information.

However, prominent Republicans now allege that during 2011, Sorenson participated in a theft and evaded rules against taking a salary from a campaign. Those charges could well be a factor when Sorenson faces re-election in Iowa Senate district 13 in 2014. Covering Madison County and most of Warren County, this seat should be an easy Republican hold, especially in a midterm election year. As of February 2013, Senate district 13 contained 13,457 registered Democrats, 15,076 Republicans, and 15,568 no-party voters. I've posted a map of the district below.

Republicans hope to win back the Iowa Senate majority in 2014, but they don't have as many good Democratic targets as they had in 2012. They certainly can't afford to lose a seat like Senate district 13, especially when a couple of other Republican incumbents may face tough challenges (namely Mark Chelgren in Senate district 41 and Rick Bertrand in Senate district 7).

If I were a Republican, I'd be looking for a new candidate to run in next year's GOP Senate primary. Sorenson has big fans in the party, especially on the Ron Paul "Liberty" wing, but I would guess that a Republican who hasn't been accused of theft and questionable ethics would fare better in a general election.

UPDATE: I should have clarified that Peter Waldron filed the ethics complaint against Sorenson. He is the same person who filed the FEC complaint mentioned above.

The Iowa Republican uploaded Waldron's full ethics complaint to the Iowa Senate here (pdf). It includes Eric Woolson's sworn affidavit.

Senate rejects Grassley's version of Violence Against Women Act

desmoinesdem — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:05:00 GMT

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is unfinished business from the last Congress. First adopted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of September 2011. Since then, Congress has funded VAWA programs through continuing spending resolutions.

Iowa's Congressional delegation split on party lines when the House and the Senate passed their own versions of the VAWA reauthorization last year.

As the Senate took up the act again this week, Senator Chuck Grassley offered an amendment to address what he views as problems with the Democratic bill. Senators rejected Grassley's substitute yesterday by 65 votes to 34 (roll call). Ten Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus to oppose the amendment. The Senate is likely to approve the Democratic version of the VAWA reauthorization early next week. That bill "would authorize $659 million over five years for the programs, down 17 percent from the last reauthorization in 2005." That funding drop is remarkable when you consider that in 2005, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.

After the jump I've enclosed more details about Grassley's amendment.
When the Senate last considered the VAWA in April 2012, Grassley and Senator Kay Bailey Hutichison of Texas offered a substitute amendment making a few key changes to the Democratic version. In a speech to the Senate at that time, Grassley said the GOP amendment would correct alleged "fiscal irregularities" in VAWA programs funded by the federal government. He argued against a Democratic provision to increase visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. He also objected to a provision that "would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country." Grassley did not mention provisions to improve services for LGBT victims of domestic violence, but those were also a big problem for Congressional Republicans. Grassley argued (correctly, it turned out) that the Senate majority's version of the VAWA reauthorization had no chance of passing the U.S. House.

The latest Democratic bill to reauthorize the VAWA does not contain the provision on undocumented immigrants who are victims of violence. Speaking to Iowa journalists this week, Grassley said,

"We raised a lot of concerns about how that [immigration provision] was kind of a subterfuge, but I think the chair took our considerations into the bill this year," Grassley said.

On the same conference call with reporters, Grassley said the tribal courts issue was "the only sticking point" left in the Senate.

Grassley wants to remove the provision that would allow Native American women raped on reservation land by a non-Indian to have the case heard in a tribal court. Tribal courts currently have no jurisdiction over non-Native American defendants.
Allowing that jurisdiction would raise constitutional questions, Grassley said. The focus should instead be on providing needed services to Native American women, he said.

In a speech to the Senate last April, Grassley fleshed out the constitutional questions:

For instance, the majority insisted on giving Indian tribal courts criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian Americans for the first time in our country's history. The committee held one hearing on reauthorizing this bill and it devoted no attention to exploring how this provision would operate. As a result, the committee described this provision in only four sentences in its report on the legislation. We all recognize that domestic violence rates in Indian country are too high. Both the Committee reported bill and the Hutchison-Grassley substitute contain provisions to address the problem.
But the majority cannot explain why expanding the power of tribal courts would be effective or how this would work. Do the tribes have the resources and expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution? How would the federal courts' caseload be affected by all the new habeas petitions that would necessarily be filed if this became law? What changes would occur in the existing relationships between federal, state, and tribal law enforcement?
The majority has no idea whether this provision would help matters or not because it simply did not give this issue any careful attention. Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has raised several constitutional issues that would be posed by this provision as it was reported from the Committee. These include due process, equal protection, Fifth Amendment grand jury and double jeopardy issues, as well as Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and a jury trial by one's peers.
At the eleventh hour before floor consideration, the majority has recognized the serious constitutional issues that were raised by the Committee language. It has changed the language in an effort to respond to the constitutional questions it had denied existed.
If we had had a hearing on these questions, matters could have proceeded differently.
These changes do not address the constitutional questions CRS posed about Congressional power to recognize the inherent power of tribes to prosecute non-Indians. Nor do they affect the inability of a defendant to appeal his conviction. And, of course, they do not address the practical concerns that I have raised all along.
CRS also raises constitutional due process concerns regarding another section in the bill that would give tribal courts the authority to enforce protective orders. That section remains unchanged.
Ironically, the constitutional concerns about the criminal provisions are made more severe because the majority refused to eliminate language we asked them to omit. Constitutional problems are made worse because the bill tribes criminal jurisdiction as part of their claimed inherent sovereignty. Our substitute strikes the provisions.
Mr. President, I ask to include the relevant portions of the CRS analysis in the record.
But to address the real problems of domestic violence among Native Americans, our substitute would permit tribes to petition for protective orders against non-Indians in federal court.

Jim Abrams explained the other side of that argument in a story for the Associated Press:

How to deal with the alarming level of violence against women on tribal lands, often perpetrated by non-Indian partners, was also a major sticking point last year when the Senate and House passed different bills.
The Senate bill would recognize tribal authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit domestic violence against their Indian spouses or partners.
Indian women often live hours and hours away from the nearest federal prosecutor, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a key supporter, and for those abusing women in these isolated places that "equates to nothing short of a safe haven for them."
The National Congress of American Indians says that 39 percent of Indian and Alaska Native women will be subject to violence by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, well above rates for other races. It says U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute half of violent crimes in Indian country, and two-thirds of those cases involved sexual abuse.
"Let's not undercut the provisions to help protect Indian woman," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "The best legal views of which I am aware believe these provisions are both constructive and constitutional."

Chief Justice Cady makes strong case for more court funding

desmoinesdem — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:35:00 GMT

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady delivered the annual Condition of the Judiciary speech to Iowa House and Senate members yesterday. As he did in 2011 and again last year, Cady appealed to lawmakers to fund the judiciary at an adequate level. Highlights from his case are below.
The full text of Cady's speech to lawmakers is available here. You can watch the video of his remarks at Iowa Public Television's website or listen to the audio on this page at Radio Iowa. Cady has a more gentle voice than one usually hears in political oratory, but he managed to convey his argument forcefully while speaking quietly. Legislators interrupted his remarks with applause several times.

Cady talked about the many conversations he and other Supreme Court justices have had with Iowans around the state: "civic groups, business organizations, legislators, local leaders, educators, students, and of course, those individuals who work so hard in the judicial branch on a daily basis." Overall, he is requesting a 3.5 percent increase in the judiciary's annual budget. He listed the following six key tasks for Iowa courts:

I. Protect Iowa's Children

Young Iowans who turn to crime, or who must cope with shattered families, or who suffer from daily abuse, represent a tragic failing of our society. They also represent potential expenditures of millions, no billions, of future taxpayer dollars if they end up incarcerated or must be treated for more serious conditions as adults. We save taxpayer dollars when troubled children receive the full and timely services of the juvenile court system. In this critical area, our courts do not just hold juveniles accountable for their actions, we also construct, implement, and monitor a remedy until our assistance is no longer needed. We are not only the emergency room for these struggling children and their families. We are the recovery room and, importantly, the rehabilitation center that follows.

Cady described ways in which juvenile court judges make a difference in children's lives. He praised Iowa's "nationally recognized family drug courts that target families with parents who have substance-related disorders." According to Cady, family drug courts have served 399 families in five years, preventing foster placement for 576 children and saving taxpayers more than $2 million.

But Cady noted that current funding is not enough to keep juvenile courts functioning as needed. This passage drew applause from legislators.

I have visited with juvenile judges and juvenile court officers and learned firsthand that the most important and proven part of their job is to have an early face-to-face conversation with troubled youth. [...] We do not have enough juvenile court officers, however, to reach all of our children in need, and too often our first contact with a child is through a letter. That is just wrong. Every child who enters into our system deserves to have at least a face-to-face meeting with an assigned trained juvenile court officer. We know that with early personal intervention more troubled children will be saved from a life of crime and lifted out of a world of heartache.

II. Provide Full-Time Access to Justice

Iowans expect and deserve to have full-time access to justice. [...] Currently, all clerk of court offices in Iowa are closed every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. Closures deny access to Iowans, including those seeking commitment of love ones for mental illness and substance abuse and people seeking protection from domestic violence. We have all heard stories about domestic violence victims having to wait for an order of protection because the clerk of court offices are closed. [...] The number of adult mental health commitment petitions has grown 45 percent in the last decade, while the number of juvenile commitment petitions has grown 93 percent during the same time. [...] In addition, closures slow down the processing of child support checks, liens, garnishments, warrants, and other important matters. These closures should end. Iowans deserve and expect all clerk of court offices to be open every day during business hours.

III. Operate an Efficient, Full-Service Court System

Cady described the Iowa Judicial Branch's "electronic document management system" (EDMS), which started in Plymouth County in 2010 and has spread to 15 counties. He said the project of creating an "efficient paperless court system" is on track to be implemented in 30 more counties by the end of this year. According to Cady, EDMS helps law enforcement officers, litigants representing themselves, and small business owners as well as court staff and judges.

IV. Provide Faster and Less Costly Resolution of Legal Disputes

Cady noted that "justice delayed is justice denied," and he has heard from many people in the business community that Iowa courts need to help resolve disputes more quickly.

Technology can only do so much for a justice system. We have learned that potential efficiencies in our court system quickly fall out of reach without sufficient personnel. Too many times, a case must be rescheduled because a judge is without some essential staff to allow the case to proceed. I have personally called lawyers to apologize for this unfortunate circumstance and for the additional costs. In people's lives, one courtroom delay is one too many. This is not how a justice system should operate, and it is not what Iowa litigants should endure. [...]
This leads me to a related point. We are trying to operate our branch of government as any efficient, successful business or organization would operate, and we must pay competitive salaries to our judges and magistrates that reward superior performance, sustain committed service, and compete in the marketplace.

Cady also described two innovations that are intended to mae the court system more responsive. First, there will be a new track "litigants can select that will reduce the costly and time-consuming discovery disputes that often accompany litigation." Second, they have approved a pilot project to establish business courts "staffed by judges specially trained in the complex issues facing businesses in our modern economy."

By relocating these complex litigation cases to a separate docket, other civil cases may proceed more efficiently. Additionally, we expect business courts to help all Iowans by contributing an important piece to the new wave of economic confidence in Iowa as a place to grow and prosper.

V. Be Open and Transparent

Cady described innovations in allowing "audio, photographic, and video coverage" of Iowa courts. He said the judicial branch has created a committee of journalists and court users to update the rules for covering the courts, including smart phones and new ways of communicating like blogging amd twitter.

VI. Provide Fair and Impartial Justice for All

Cady reminded legislators that judges decide cases based on the facts, not personal beliefs or public opinion.

While some may disagree with the court's work from time to time, it is our hope that this pledge will always be visible in all our work. We must be devoted to fair and impartial courts because it is an important component in our future success as a state.

That was the closest Cady came to alluding to the political battles over retaining Iowa Supreme Court justices since the 2009 decision on same-sex marriage. Iowans voted against retaining three Supreme Court justices up for retention in 2010. However, in 2012 a majority voted to retain Justice David Wiggins and three new justices appointed by Governor Terry Branstad. None of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices are up for retention in 2014. Cady, Daryl Hecht, and Brent Appel will be up for retention in 2016.

After Cady's speech yesterday, Iowa House Republican Gary Worthan expressed support for raising court officials' salaries. He called the move "more than reasonable."

"We're looking at a situation where all of our judges and magistrates have foregone any kind of a raise for the last five years so that we could keep as many salaried people employed as we could," Worthan told reporters after the speech. [...]
"The court has been very responsive as far as trying to increase efficiencies and they've pushed that I think probably about as far as they can," Worthan said, "and I think it's our responsibility to come up with some of the funds that they need."
Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington, told reporters "every penny" spent to steer troubled kids in the right direction saves taxpayers "dollars and dollars" down the road.
"If this state is going to succeed, we need to take care of our kids and stop throwing them in prisons," Courtney said.

Worthan chairs the Justice Systems Appropriations Subcommittee in the Iowa House. Courtney is vice chair of the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee and chairs the Justice Systems budget subcommittee in the upper chamber.

State Senator Daryl Beall, who like Cady is from Fort Dodge, posted these comments on his Facebook page after the chief justice's speech.

Chief Justice Mark Cady delivered the most inspiration[al], most eloquent, most persuasive, most reasoned State of the Judiciary I have heard in 11 years. The soft-spoken justice called on the judiciary, the third co-equal branch of government, to be teammates and partners with the legislative and executive branches. He stated the case for more clerks and court reporters. "We must protect our children," he said. "We must save them from a life of crime and heartache," as he forcefully and eloquently pleaded for family drug courts and juvenile courts. Justice must be delivered in a faster and less expensive manner, must be open and transparent, and must be accessible, based on merit, free from political influence. I was so proud and pleased to be Justice Cady's senator.

Iowa reaction to Obama's gun law proposals

desmoinesdem — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:50:00 GMT

Today President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden revealed a list of proposals designed to reduce gun violence. The full transcript from the press conference is here. It's embarrassing that we needed a presidential order to allow the Centers for Disease Control to study this issue.

After the jump I've posted excerpts from the president's remarks and a statement from Representative Steve King (R, IA-04). I also included some comments from Iowa legislators about possible state legislation related to guns or gun violence. I will update this post as needed with more comments on these issues. UPDATE: Added Senator Tom Harkin's comments.

SECOND UPDATE: Added comments from Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02).
Statement from Representative Steve King, January 16:

"If there are Constitutional steps that can be taken to avert future tragedies like Sandy Hook, Congress needs to consider them. Taking steps to prevent tragedies like the terrible events that occurred in Newtown is a noble cause," said King. "This is the latest attempt by the President to legislate through emotion, but doing so does not lead to quality legislation.
Reducing violence across our nation is a worthy goal, but it is imperative that the Constitutional rights of our citizens are not forgotten in the process. The right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny is the reason for the Second Amendment. We cannot disarm all law abiding Americans in an attempt to preempt a deranged individual."

Who said anything about disarming all law abiding Americans? Nothing in the proposals President Obama outlined today would do that.

Statement from Senator Tom Harkin:

"Like all Americans, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. What added to our grief as a nation was that it also came on the heels of mass gun shootings in Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and the senseless acts of violence that occur every day in cities throughout our country. In light of all of these events, it is apparent that far too many Americans, including children, are needlessly losing their lives. We must come together as a country to prevent future tragedies, future senseless loss of life, and to ensure that no American lives in fear.
"I applaud the White House for quickly convening a task force and issuing comprehensive recommendations to address violence in this country. Importantly, this proposal protects the rights of gun owners, while advancing commonsense safety and crime reduction measures. As a hunter, I know that the recreational use and collection of guns is important to many Iowans and as this debate advances, I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun owners. But we cannot continue down a path of unlimited access to any arms, including those capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in a very short time. We can protect gun rights while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer - goals that are not mutually exclusive.
"I am also encouraged that this proposal recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed - one that focuses on ensuring that our students get the services they need and addresses mental health services in our country with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention. As chair of the Senate HELP Committee, I look forward to bringing together experts to examine our current mental health system and how the federal government can ensure that people and communities who need help for mental health conditions have timely access to the services they require."

Representative Dave Loebsack did not issue a statement about the president's remarks but held a forum about gun issues on January 16. Dar Danielson reported for Radio Iowa,

Loebsack, a Democrat from Iowa City, says he has not had time to read over all the president's proposals on gun control yet and could not make any comments on them. Loebsack says this is the first in a series of meetings he will hold to gather input on gun control legislation and safety.

Excerpt from Obama's remarks at January 16 press conference:

In the month since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun -- 900 in the past month. And every day we wait, that number will keep growing.
So I'm putting forward a specific set of proposals based on the work of Joe's task force. And in the days ahead I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality, because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.
And I'm going to do my part. As soon as I'm finished speaking here, I will sit at that desk and I will sign a directive giving law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence. We will make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by strengthening the background check system. We will help schools hire more resource officers, if they want them, and develop emergency preparedness plans. We will make sure mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence, even as we acknowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.
And while year after year those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to de-fund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it. And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.
Now, these are a few of the 23 executive actions that I'm announcing today, but as important as these steps are, they are in no way a substitute for action from members of Congress. To make a real and lasting difference, Congress too must act, and Congress must act soon. And I'm calling on Congress to pass some very specific proposals right away.
First, it's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.
(Applause.) The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years, that's kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That's not safe; that's not smart; that's not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.
If you want to buy a gun, whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks, including more than 70 percent of the National Rifle Association's members, according to one survey. So there's no reason we can't do this.
Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines. (Applause.) The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high- capacity magazines, has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible, to do as much damage using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage. And that's what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people -- 70 people, killing 12, in a matter of minutes.
Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater.
A majority of Americans agree with us on this.
And by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994 urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons. (Applause.)
And finally, Congress needs to help rather than hinder law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.
Since Congress hasn't confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years, they should confirm Todd Jones, who will be -- who has been acting and I will be nominating for the post. (Applause.)
And at a time when budget cuts are forcing many communities to reduce their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on our streets.
And let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.
I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.
That's what these reforms are designed to do. They're common- sense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people.

Speaking to Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson, Republican State Representative Tom Shaw described gun rights bills he plans to introduce in the Iowa House.

"It basically says the federal government cannot come in and take our firearms. We will stop them," Shaw says. "An Iowa citizen would not have to comply with registration or any type of confiscation, so it's just a matter of the state standing up for their citizens." [...]
Representative Shaw plans to sponsor another bill that would let anyone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon carry their gun on school grounds.
"To me it does no good to take the sheep dog away from the sheep. It doesn't protect them from the wolf. It doesn't make them safer," Shaw says. "These 'gun free zones' don't work because these mad men or whatever you want to call them - they seek these 'gun free zones' out."

Shaw is considered one of the most conservative Iowa House Republicans. Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican blog recently featured a couple of Shaw's Facebook posts as examples of how "Conservatives Can Be Their Own Worst Enemy" in the gun debate.

Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Rob Hogg told Henderson,

"I understand the House has - they had last year - a bunch of crazy proposals on guns and I have no interest in having any of those come over," Hogg says. "If they want to waste their time in passing them, they will be dead on arrival in the state senate because we're not doing that." [...]
Senator Hogg plans to pursue a different course in reaction to what happened at that Connecticut elementary school.
"We are focused on something that is within the state's power, which is improving mental health, especially in those circumstances where we can also improve public safety by that." Hogg says. "There shouldn't be a person in the state who needs mental health services who can't obtain those services."

UPDATE: List of actions Obama will take using his executive authority:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Themes from the Iowa legislature's opening day in 2013

desmoinesdem — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:05:00 GMT

The Iowa House and Senate began their 2013 session yesterday with the usual welcoming speeches from legislative leaders and the ritual of choosing desks for each lawmaker in the chambers. Judging from this photo, returning legislators get first dibs.

As was the case in 2012, social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage were absent from the opening-day speeches. Republican leaders emphasized the need to cut both property and income taxes. Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen also claimed credit on behalf of Republicans for Iowa's improving fiscal condition. House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer spent a fair amount of time criticizing Congress before calling for state action to improve education and cut taxes. House Speaker Pro Tem Steve Olson repeated some themes of last year's election campaign and quoted U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix concentrated on tax reforms.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal focused on education and workforce training programs to address "Iowa's skill shortage." Senate President Pam Jochum focused on health-related issues: improve mental health services, helping elderly people stay in their own homes, and expanding Medicaid, which she described as "the biggest opportunity for this session to make a positive difference for Iowans." Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy emphasized the need for bipartisan work on a range of issues: education, mental health care delivery, the transition to a new maximum security prison, and protecting natural resources.

Follow me after the jump for excerpts from the opening-day speeches by legislative leaders (as prepared for delivery). I included the full text of Jochum's remarks, because her personal journey says a lot about who she is. Jochum also paid a lovely tribute to former Republican State Senator Pat Ward, who died last year.
Excerpt from remarks by Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal:

In recent years, we've kept the focus on bread-and-butter issues that matter most to Iowans: jobs, education, and health care.
As the Senate Majority Leader, I will work to continue that focus. It's the best way to expand Iowa's middle class, and it's the best way to bring long-term prosperity to our state.
I will highlight just one policy proposal today.
My top priority for the 2013 session is addressing Iowa's skill shortage.
We've all read reports showing that Iowa businesses can't find the workers they need to expand.
Let's remember that Iowa actually DOES NOT have a shortage of workers; we have a shortage of SKILLED workers.
That's why this session we should do more to help Iowa workers upgrade their skills.
I recently met with educators, business leaders, and community college students in Sioux City, Mason City, Newton, Fort Dodge and Council Bluffs.
At one of those meetings, an Iowan told me a story that I'd like to share with you. He said that just a couple of months ago, he was working for the minimum wage, struggling to support his family.
Then, he got one of the Kibbie Grants we created last year. That made it possible for him to enroll at his local community college for a month long class in commercial driving.
He completed the class, got his CDL, and he was quickly hired for a much better job as truck driver.
That was good news for his family, for the business that hired him and for the Iowa economy as a whole.
And it was all possible because Democrats and Republicans in the Iowa Legislature found common ground.
Last year, we took one step forward. This year, we should take several more.
Adult basic education is for adults that-for whatever reason-didn't get a high school diplomat. And Iowa is one of just three states that provide almost no support to adult basic education.
Let's listen to Iowans and expand our definition of adult education.
Let's increase our investment in improving the skills of workers at all levels; everything from non-degree programs like those that help you earn a Commercial Drivers License, to one- or two-year associate degrees, to four-year and post-graduate degrees.
Why shouldn't Iowa become the best state in the nation when it comes to workforce training?
I want to be able to tell businesses: "We can help train workers so they have whatever skills you need to succeed."
This can be the common ground that unites all four caucuses and the executive branch. Investing in workers is the best way to grow our economy and help Governor Branstad reach his goal of increasing Iowa family income by 25 percent.

Full text of the speech by Senate President Pam Jochum:

Welcome to the 85th General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature.
I am honored to serve as the President of the Senate.
As the Senate's presiding officer, I will be inspired by my predecessors, including the irreplaceable Jack Kibbie of Emmetsburg, the godfather of Iowa's community colleges.
We've all traveled our own paths to this day. I want to especially welcome the 11 new members of the Senate and their families.
Congratulations on the commitment to public service that brought you here today.
My own journey to this podium is grounded in my experiences as a lifelong resident of Dubuque.
Both my parents grew up in Dubuque. After serving in the Navy, my dad started out working on the line at a family owned business, the Dubuque Packing Company. He eventually worked his way up to becoming a company vice president.
My mother managed our household and guided six children to successful adulthood. In her "spare" time, she volunteered to prepare and serve the breakfast and lunch program at the neighborhood grade school.
My parents brought their children up to be involved in our community, and to give something back in return for all that had been given to us.
There was one other group of people who influenced me. As you may know, the Dubuque area is home to five women religious orders.
The good sisters instilled a passion for justice in me. They taught with their words and actions that all persons are created equal.
And they taught us that to fail to speak up and do what's right is to fail to do your duty as a citizen.
Democracy, equality, justice were not just words we learned in school. The sisters taught us they were ideals that we should seek to advance in our personal and public lives.
Years later, as a young mother, I encountered discrimination that brought that passion for justice to life.
At the time, "Area Residential Care," a local group that helped adults with intellectual disabilities, hoped to build a group home in an upscale Dubuque neighborhood.
One particular individual was quite vocal in his opposition to the home. He told me that he didn't like the way "they" looked. He worried the presence of people like them would lower property values.
Despite the opposition, the city council granted the building permit.
There are now some two dozen similar group homes in Dubuque. Adults with intellectual disabilities and their families are more integrated into our community than ever before. And Dubuque is more beautiful and a better place to live because of it.
That was my first experience with the discrimination that my daughter, Sarah, faces simply for being who she is. It helped convince me to run for public office.
In 1992 I became the first woman to represent the City of Dubuque in the Iowa Legislature.
I arrived in Des Moines ready to pass legislation to improve the lives of Iowa families and make our state more prosperous. I'm sure many of you walked in the Statehouse today with the same goals.
However, my ambitious plans collided with a harsh political reality.
As a Democratic member of the Iowa House, I would spend the next 14 years in the minority.
Pat Ward, our former colleague, knew how to accomplish things for Iowans even while in the minority. With patience, persistent good will, and hard work, Pat helped improve the lives of Iowans.
In the last few years, I was honored to work with her to give young people involved in the juvenile justice system a second chance.
Pat knew how to put good government ahead of good politics, and we all miss her.
Today, Iowa is one of only three states with a divided legislature. To be successful, we must all work together.
The troubling questions confronting us do not have a Democratic answer, or a Republican answer, or an urban answer, or a rural answer.
They can only have human answers for they are the questions that ask what kind of life we want to live together.
One of those troubling questions is how to ease the serious health care worries many Iowa families have.
Fortunately, on this important issue, legislators from both parties have already listened to Iowans and already worked successfully together.
Several non-partisan health care commissions made up of health care providers, insurers, business advocates, and consumers have pointed us in the right direction.
Former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack and then-former Governor Terry Branstad co-chaired one of those commissions.
One result is that Iowa Republicans and Democrats worked together to expand Hawk-i, the Healthy and Well-Kids of Iowa insurance program.
That bipartisan effort is why Iowa's children are now among the healthiest in the nation.
And that's why Governor Branstad was absolutely right to set his sights on making Iowa the healthiest state in the nation.
Today, Iowa is well positioned to lead the nation in solving tough health care problems for families and businesses alike.
We can do it by showing the nation how to put lasting progress ahead of short-term partisanship.
This session, let's continue our bipartisan effort to improve mental health services across the state.
This session, let's keep investing in the services that allow our older citizens to stay in their own homes.
And here's the biggest opportunity for this session to make a positive difference for Iowans.
Right now, too many Iowa families risk the loss of their home and bankruptcy if a parent or spouse or child becomes ill.
Right now, our local hospitals and health care providers are burdened with roughly one billion dollars each year in uncompensated care.
Right now, that uncompensated care drives up up insurance costs for every Iowa business and every family with health insurance.
We can fix this problem, and we can do it right now.
Last month, I listened Iowa's health care leaders from across the state.
The people who know Iowa health care issue best are speaking with one voice. They are urging us to expand Medicaid.
They point out that expanding Medicaid will make affordable health insurance available to all Iowans; expanding Medicaid will make Iowa's health care system financially secure; and expanding Medicaid slow rising health care costs for Iowa families and Iowa businesses.
By expanding Medicaid, we will bring health insurance to 80,000 currently uninsured Iowans and preserve health care for 70,000 Iowans currently on IowaCare.
Iowans look at the mess divided government in Washington D.C. has produced and they shake their heads.
Iowans expect better from their state legislature, and we have delivered in previous sessions.
Early in this session, let's show Iowans that rather than engaging in senseless partisanship, we will again listen to them and do what's right.
I strongly encourage you to talk with the hospitals, nursing homes, doctors and other health care providers in your districts.
I did.
, and I'm convinced that expanding affordable health insurance is one of the best things we can do for Iowa families and to help grow the Iowa economy.
When our children and grandchildren look back, I hope they will remember this session as a time when Iowa's common sense and Iowa's sense of community rose up to meet the challenge of our times.
At the close of the convention that drafted the United States Constitution, Ben Franklin asked this question: "Is it a rising or a setting sun?" Each generation since 1787 has answered that question. Once again, the answer rests with us.
Thank you.

Excerpt from remarks by Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen:

Coming off an election cycle, we have all spent a great deal of time meeting with Iowans in our districts, getting their thoughts and making commitments to them. Two of the most prevalent issues Iowans heard from the campaigns this summer revolve around state spending and comprehensive tax relief. Republicans and Democrats alike ran on these issues and Iowans expect action.
Two years ago, the state faced a $900 million budget shortfall. Today, we have an ending balance of $688 million and our budget reserves are full. Plain and simple, we are in the current budget situation due to the fiscal discipline insisted upon by this chamber and the leadership shown by Governor Branstad over the last two sessions.
This is a fundamental change in legislative decision making, driven not by us, but by Iowans. This is a significant departure from how government operated in the past where every dollar was spent, even some we didn't have.
Our 99 percent expenditure limitation law has served us well. However, this law allows the Legislature and the governor to spend more than the state collects. This loophole is one House Republicans will not exploit. The only way to ensure sustainable and responsible state spending is to spend no more than we have - that is to say we must balance ongoing revenue with ongoing expenses.
House Republicans have instilled a fundamental culture change and we must not, we will not, retreat now.
This chamber must stick to the principles used to get our fiscal house in order:
• We will not spend more money than the state takes in;
• We will not use one-time money to pay for on-going expenses;
• We will not intentionally underfund entitlement programs to balance the state's budget;
• We will return unused tax dollars to Iowa's taxpayers.
There are some who see the state's ending balance as a giant pot of money, and they have already begun devising ways to spend it. If we were to spend everything we were allowed to under law, the state would need to see nine percent growth in 2014 revenues just to maintain that level of funding. This is unsustainable and should caution everyone making spending plans.
Let me be very clear - the ending balance is an overpayment by the hardworking taxpayers of Iowa. It is their money and they should get it back. In order to continue on the path of sound budgeting we must not back up from this pledge. We must not use this overpayment to feed government's appetite for growth.
Representative Soderberg -Iowans look forward to your committee bringing us a budget that conforms to these principles.
Most, if not all of us in this chamber have also said we need to go to work on reducing taxes, specifically property taxes. I would say that time is long since overdue.
A while back I received an email from Patty, a small business owner in my hometown of Hiawatha. This business has been locally owned and operated for more than 25 years. Patty stated, "I think your message that Iowa is open for business sounds great, but is questionable. Last year our property taxes went up over 14 percent. This should be illegal. It has become difficult for our small business to continue to compete in such a climate. We need new equipment and more employees."
Our job creators want to hire, they want to invest in our communities. They are being stifled and burdened by our government and their taxes. It's up to us to change this.
Now is the time for action, not more lip service. Iowans grow weary of campaign promises during election summers that turn into roadblocks and partisan bickering during session winters.
Some talk about giving one group of people this credit and another group that credit. This is neither comprehensive nor predictable tax relief and reform. It is arbitrary, restrictive, and unreliable. We need comprehensive reform, reform for ALL Iowans.
Additionally, local governments are projected to collect more in property taxes than ever before. The rollback has turned into the roll up and homeowners are paying the price in a big way. From Fiscal Year 2012 to 2013 alone, local governments will take an ADDITIONAL $100 million from Iowans. We must act to address this rapid growth in government spending. If we do not, the hardworking taxpayers are again getting the short end of the stick.
During the previous General Assembly, this chamber came together with Governor Branstad and passed four property tax reform bills in a bipartisan manner only to watch them die in the Senate. The 85th General Assembly must do better.
I say again, House Republicans are not dug in on any one plan - we are open to any suggestion, but it must deliver significant and real property tax savings and include all classes of property. The focus cannot be on protecting and maximizing government revenues.
Representative Sands, Iowans look forward to your committee bringing us a property tax reform and relief bill that includes all classifications of property, that moves us away from having the third highest commercial property taxes in the nation and the 16th highest residential property taxes in the nation. Taxpayers need relief they can count on.
All of the proposals we work on must be directed at creating a stronger Iowa - a strong economy, strong budget leadership and strong schools and communities.
House Republicans will:
• Offer meaningful, inclusive, and reliable property tax relief and reforms.
• Eliminate job-killing red tape, burdensome regulations and declare dead any bills that threaten economic growth such as repealing Right to Work.
• Advance education reforms that offer accountability, innovation and choice for parents. We are not interested in simply throwing more money at a system that drives us to mediocrity. We are interested in identifying creative solutions that raise student achievement, empower teachers and better prepare young Iowans to compete in a global marketplace. These ideas must be helpful to teachers - not just another bureaucratic burden.
• Create a one-stop shop for business startups using existing departments to streamline the process and encourage entrepreneurship.
• Allow hardworking Iowa taxpayers to keep more of their money. We will streamline Iowa's income tax system and lower rates and continue to put any overpayment of tax dollars into the Taxpayer Trust Fund and return it directly to the pockets of Iowans.

Excerpt from remarks by Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer:

Each and every one of you should be proud of the responsibility your constituents have entrusted you with. Do not let the hectic nature of session days obscure your purpose.
I am afraid that our leaders in Washington may have lost that focus. People in Iowa and around the country are losing their faith in government. They are losing faith in the ability of good men and women to tackle issues head on.
They see a Congress afraid to debate issues openly or operate transparently by passing a budget. They see runaway spending as the nation's debt burden reaches nearly inconceivable levels. They watch health care costs skyrocket yet no reforms to slow it.
They see lip service paid to the burden of overregulation only to watch onerous rules continue to proliferate under overzealous agencies. Our farmers are busy feeding the world and yet doubt is cast over their industry because of the failure to pass a farm bill.
The so-called "fiscal cliff" epitomized why so many are losing faith. Allegedly, Washington was finally forced to confront its own fiscal crisis. The result? More taxes, MORE debt, and they kicked as many cans down the road as they could.
If you feel anything like me then you are probably ready to tell them to get out of our way and let the states handle it!
It is my hope that the 85th General Assembly of Iowa may serve as an example of the best in public service. Iowans can be proud that we do not have the same problems that plague Washington.
In fact, we have the opportunity to show Washington what happens when we focus not on our differences, but on our common goals. Let's work together to identify the problems we face and focus on solutions.
An area where we should be able to come together is educating our youth. There was a time when the education system in Iowa evoked pride. Today however, it raises mostly concern.
We are concerned about the quality and rigor of the education our children are receiving. We are concerned that students are not graduating with the mastery necessary to succeed in college. We are concerned that our students are not graduating with the skills needed to enter the workforce and that increasingly our students must compete with not just those from other states, but other nations.
We must be resolved to address our education system. We should be open to new approaches and focused on measureable results. If we continue to fall behind, our children will find it difficult to compete and our employers will be left to look elsewhere for a skilled workforce.
Revitalizing our education system is one of the great opportunities of this General Assembly.
The citizens of Iowa have told us they are unhappy with the unsustainable growth of property taxes. If we continue to do nothing, our commercial rates will continue to drive away business, and homeowners will bear the burden of historic increases thanks to the roll up. Most of us in the room recognized that and campaigned on addressing it.
It is time for the campaign rhetoric to become action. As we do so, we must acknowledge our own poor record of funding property tax credits. We must also appreciate concerns that property tax cuts could shift the burden to other classes of property.
Property tax relief and reform can take many forms. We should be open to many ideas. However, as recognition of our own shortcomings we should ensure that it is significant, predictable and avoids any shift while benefitting all classes of property.
President Ronald Reagan is famous for saying "the problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much." I think we can update that for Iowa in 2013. The problem is not that the state spends too little, the problem is that we collect too much!
We worked hard over the last two years to implement some common sense principles into the budgeting process. Thanks to the hard work of Iowans and these sound budgeting practices, we find the state's finances in a healthy position.
This is tenuous however, so we must be vigilant. This starts by sticking to our budgeting principles of not spending more than we take in, not balancing the budget by intentionally underfunding obligations and not using one time funds to pay for ongoing expenses.
We can build on our success by adding another principle. We should return unused tax dollars back to the taxpayers of Iowa. The state is funding its obligations. Bipartisan budgets over the last two years have ensured that. Yet we have an ending balance.
Rather than looking for ways to spend that money, we should give it back to whom it belongs. It is the hard-working taxpayers of Iowa who earned that money and it is they who can best invest it back into our state. Please resist the urge to grow government with that money, it might not always be there.
At a time when the federal government is fighting over how to take more money, I look forward to spending our time on how to return it. Which is why I think Iowa is positioned to be a leader in the nation and to provide a shining example of the best in public service.

Excerpt from remarks by Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Steve Olson:

Last fall, together with Governor Branstad and the Senate Republicans, House Republicans presented an action plan. An action plan to promote a durable and prosperous Iowa - that action plan is called Iowa Strong. It is an ambitious agenda - one that is about the big issues and this session must center on the big issues:
-We must continue to work on keeping the Iowa economy moving forward by:
-Promoting job creation through tax relief and reform for Iowa families and businesses
-Ending job killing red tape and burdensome regulations on Iowa farmers and businesses
-Continuing to adopt a budget that spends less than we take in
-Moving forward education reforms that will strengthen our schools and communities
Last November, Senator Marco Rubio visited our great state. He offered an astute observation on the American people, "The social and moral well-being of people is directly linked to their economic well-being." These words ring true - so when we begin the people's business here in this chamber and in committee meetings, we must continually keep in mind the most important issue that faces us - our economy.
Today, we have the nation's third highest property tax on businesses - this means all business large and small. We cannot afford to over burden the small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the large-scale job creators. But not just that - we need to lower income taxes for Iowa families and put more money in their pockets.

Excerpt from remarks by Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy:

Two years ago, I issued a statement during our opening day ceremony. Today, two years later, I'd like to paraphrase that statement now:
House Democrats are ready to work with you in a bi-partisan way to move this great state forward. We are ready to focus on the important issues such as education, health care, public safety and a clean environment. Each and every day that House Democrats show up to work and find that the majority party is ready to work with us in a bi-partisan way on these and other important issues, then Mr. Speaker, you will receive a helping hand from us. But be mindful, however, if a day comes when House Democrats show up to work and instead find that the House ship has steered into stormy waters--- then House Democrats will attempt to steer that ship out of those stormy waters, away from the extreme.back to the mainstream.
In my opinion.far too many of those days occurred over the past two years.
Now, today, let's turn the page.
In a legislative publication I was reading yesterday, I learned that Iowa is one of only 3 states that has a legislature that is under divided control. Clearly, Iowans expect us to work together. Does anyone really believe anymore that Iowa is a so-called red state or a blue state? Looking at the results of the last several elections, it is clear that Iowa is the "purpleist" of purple states. Iowans expect us to work together. I think most would also agree that while Iowans would not expect us to forsake our principles, they would expect us, when needed, to find common ground and to moderate.
Let's work together this year in a spirit of compromise and common ground.
Next week, on Tuesday, a special election will occur to replace Representative Brian Quirk. After the votes are tallied and a winner is declared, the winner will come to Des Moines to be sworn-in. That swearing-in will occur many days after the pomp and circumstance and lofty speeches of our opening week. As that new legislator begins his committee work, let's let him be surprised at the level of bi-partisanship and civility he finds. That it is real. and was not merely buzzwords in our opening day speeches. Let's work together this year so that when the session is over we have not stories of partisan red meat to deliver to our political partisans back home, but instead stories of substantive success.
To that end, House Democrats pledge to work in a bipartisan way with the majority party and Governor Branstad to strengthen our educational system. Let us pass something in this regard we can all be proud of. Let us also work together to strengthen our mental health delivery system so that the most vulnerable amongst us are properly cared for and treated. Let us ensure that the transition between our pre-civil war prison to our new maximum security facility is done as smoothly as possible and in a way that ensures public safety. Also, let us work together to ensure clean air and clean water and fully fund the programs that maintain our trails, watersheds, and maintain our state parks.

Excerpt from remarks by Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix:

Regardless of the hat, we know the recent years have presented great challenges that require difficult decisions to be made by families across Iowa. Belts have been tightened and budgets have been cut. Much like our family budgets, the state has been living within its means with solid success. We can and will continue to do this with sound fiscal leadership and smart planning.
Our state coffers are full, full with dollars that have come from family budgets. As legislators, we must realize and appreciate this is not our money. It's not the state's money. It's yours, and yours, and yours!
Every decision we make this year must be firmly rooted in our accountability to the hard working people of Iowa who pay their own bills and the bills of government. We owe them a budget that continues to spend less than we take in and protects our state in the event of a "rainy day," while allowing them to keep more of their own money.
As we work to enact meaningful legislation this year, it is important to keep in mind that we are all Iowans, working toward a better life in the state we love. Part of that better life is a lower tax burden. Not simply a shuffling of burden, but a real reduction of their tax burden that empowers Iowans to grow small businesses, educate their children, and save
for their future. We all trust and believe in the quality of the character of Iowans and know that empowering them is how we best serve them all.
Providing a top-tier education system is vital to our future growth and success as a state. As legislators we hear from Iowa's largest employers, our small business owners, the heads of our Universities, parents, from every sector of our state, they all want to make certain we do everything we can to improve Iowa's education system. To prepare Iowa students to not simply go to good schools, or the best in the Midwest, or even in our country. We need to have the best schools anywhere so Iowa graduates and Iowa employers can compete in the global marketplace.

NRA "blame everything but guns" links and discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:08:57 GMT

Politicians and commentators continue to react to recent comments by National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. He broke the NRA's weeklong silence following the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting with a December 21 speech (falsely billed as a "press conference") and an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" two days later.

LaPierre rejected any new restrictions on guns or ammunition and blamed a wide range of cultural influences for mass shootings. He suggested that Congress should respond by funding armed security officers in every school in the country.

This thread is for any comments about the root causes of violence or policies that could prevent future gun-related tragedies. I've enclosed lots of relevant links and analysis after the jump.
The Washington Post published the full text of LaPierre's remarks on December 21. His case boiled down to a few points:

1. Making schools "gun free zones" entices insane killers to target schools. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," so every school should have armed guards. "I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that's tested and proven to work."

2. We need a national database of the mentally ill because "our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every possibly comprehend them."

3. The entertainment industry, dominated by a few media conglomerates, "compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior, and criminal cruelty right into our homes." LaPierre offered a strangely outdated list of violent video games and movies that, in his view, encourage fantasies about killing people.

As many people have pointed out during the past week, Japan experiences very few gun-related deaths despite a large population of children and adults who play violent video games. (Japan has some of the world's most restrictive gun laws.)

Still, I don't think it's ridiculous to be concerned about violent media content. I have no idea whether Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza was immersed in this part of American popular culture, but several studies have indicated that violent video games can desensitize people to real-world violence. The American Academy of Pediatrics has pointed to extensive research showing "media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression." I agree with the academy's suggested approach to this issue:

Exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music, and video games, represents a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed. Pediatricians should assess their patients' level of media exposure and intervene on media-related health risks. Pediatricians and other child health care providers can advocate for a safer media environment for children by encouraging media literacy, more thoughtful and proactive use of media by children and their parents, more responsible portrayal of violence by media producers, and more useful and effective media ratings. Office counseling has been shown to be effective.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes any sweeping law to limit depictions of violence in popular culture. Government action may be possible in the other areas LaPierre mentioned, though.

School security

LaPierre refused to take questions at his fake "press conference," so no one was able to point out that Columbine High School's armed security officer was unable to prevent the tragedy there. The many armed military personnel at Fort Hood also failed to prevent a mentally ill gunman from killing a lot of people there.

On "Meet The Press," LaPierre stuck to his ground:

If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our school to protect our children, then call me crazy. I'll tell you what the American people-- I think the American people think it's crazy not to do it. It's the one thing that would keep people safe.
And the N.R.A. is going to try to do that. We're going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school. And we're going to work with Asa Hutchinson, who has agreed to work with us to put together a voluntary program, drawing on retired military, drawing on retired police, drawing on former Secret Service, and all these people that can actually go in and make our kids safe. That's the one thing, the one thing that we can do--
(OVERTALK)
DAVID GREGORY:
The one and only thing?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
It's a--
DAVID GREGORY:
You don't think guns should be part of the conversation?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
I think that is the one thing that we can do immediately that will immediately make our children safe.

LaPierre deflected Gregory's line of questioning about Columbine by blaming flawed police procedures for handling that situation.

On the same program, LaPierre also claimed that Israel had put an end to school shootings by putting armed security in every school. The Israeli Foreign Ministry quickly debunked that notion:

[Foreign Ministry Spokesman Yigal] Palmor told the [New York Daily News] paper, "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States." He continued, "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."
He also explained that gun control laws in the Middle Eastern nation have been strengthened: "Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon."

School administrators in Connecticut don't support increasing the number of guns on school grounds. Iowa Department of Education Director Jason Glass told WHO-TV,

"We have no proposal for armed guards in schools, and we do not intend to pursue one. If we are to put armed guards in our schools, then those individuals need to be certified and specially trained for these roles. The best approach to making our schools safer is through thoughtful, rational discussion followed by decisions that are in the best interests of children and the education professionals who serve them."

Glass didn't rule out increasing the presence of armed police officers in Iowa schools, though.

Glass said he will not formally propose the addition of armed officers at all Iowa schools, and neither will Gov. Terry Branstad. But it's possible a state lawmaker will, Glass said, noting he doesn't know of a firm proposal in Iowa yet.
"I am cautiously interested in that idea," Glass said. "It's a far better idea than 'let's arm teachers.'"
It's also an idea that would need considerable local vetting in a state where school districts are run by autonomous local school boards, Glass added.
"Before we jump on board for this proposal from NRA we would want to see specifics and talk to schools," Glass said. "We want to always put the safety of the students and teachers first, and try as much as possible to keep it out of the political and ideological arena." [...]
Glass couldn't offer a statewide estimate of what it would cost to station officers at all Iowa schools. But if a school paid $60,000 average per full-time officer, including benefits, the tab for Iowa's 1,434 buildings would be $86 million a year.

Iowa Public Television's latest edition of "Iowa Press" featured a school security discussion among Iowa Homeland Security Director Mark Schouten, School Board Association Director Tom Downs and Aplington-Parkersburg Superintendent Jon Thompson. They opposed arming teachers and didn't consider armed guards in schools the first line of defense.

Henderson: Mr. Downs, do you think that that is the answer in this instance?
Downs: I had that conversation last Friday afternoon moments after learning the tragedy when I heard one of our local Des Moines media talking heads suggest that 20% of all teachers should be armed. And I texted the producer of that station and reminded him that he ought to tell the celebrity that I would see two outcomes of that. Number one, be more school shootings. And umber two, there would be more dead teachers. Teachers focus on instruction. They are trained as educators. They're not trained as law enforcement people. To have more guns in a school whether they are in purses or on the waists of adults I don't believe is in the best interest of securing schools. No, I would be hugely opposed to any effort to arm educators.
Henderson: Mr. Thompson, there are schools in Texas where there are armed teachers and armed superintendents. It's part of their culture.
Thompson: I've never even went hunting so I would not be the right option there. I'm along with Mr. Downs agree totally against that. I just think it would lead to more problems than it would solve.
Lynch: We've talked about armed guards or having armed school personnel but should arming personnel in the school be the first step in school safety? Or are there other steps that can protect the students and teachers from a Sandy Hook situation?
Borg: Mr. Schouten?
Schouten: I would think perhaps the first step is to review the layout of the school, review the safety plan, have your local emergency management coordinator, have your first responders do a walk through, do a vulnerability assessment to see what changes, what tweaks can be made in your layout, what changes can be made in how your doors are locked, which doors are locked. Do that first and then turn to that second question.
Lynch: Do we need metal detectors at the doors? Do we need the TSA patting down kids as they come and go from school?
Schouten: I would hope not.
Lynch: Is that workable?
Downs: No, it's not in keeping with the kind of environment we want to create for kids.

Conservative gun advocate Thomas Basile was dismayed by LaPierre's stance.

The bizarre school security solution framed in a kitschy sound bite about "good guys" and "bad guys" was a dangerous and unrealistic notion. It was the kind of thing that doubtlessly left gun-owning libertarians scratching their heads. It sounded more like something out of a police state than an America where people can protect themselves and live free from fear.
There are nearly 100,000 public schools in the United States and apparently the NRA thinks that before our kids return from Christmas break, Congress should put an armed guard in all of them. Congress can't agree on what day it is, but Wayne LaPierre thinks they should create what would be a multi-billion-dollar government funding mechanism to aid already overburdened school districts with hiring security personnel. That's 100,000 schools plus funding to help private and parochial schools have similar levels of security, particularly in the inner city.
If you hire security personnel, then you have to train them. Then you have to equip them. Then you have to institute standards and review. Of course, since one guy with a gun in a school with hundreds of students, faculty and parents coming and going all day isn't going to prevent anyone from carrying weapons onto the school grounds, you have to establish a search protocol for everyone. Pat downs and metal detectors perhaps? Once you've done all that, you have created a new bureaucracy, massive new government interference in education, new fees and taxes to be passed along to property owners and irreparably damaged the learning environment for our kids.

With Congress looking for ways to cut non-defense domestic spending, LaPierre's proposal will go nowhere. There's no magic pot of money for police in every school and no influential legislator to champion the cause.

I will say this, though: LaPierre may have succeeded in creating the illusion that the NRA is "for" something to prevent gun violence rather than just against gun control.

Improvements to mental health services

The extent of Adam Lanza's mental health problems are not yet clear, but several other mass shooters have had significant, untreated mental health problems. Radio Iowa recently interviewed Iowa psychiatrist Walter Duffy about the challenges in delivering mental health care:

"Access is a difficult issue in various places because there's not enough mental health providers to go around," Duffy says. "Especially in the Midwest, psychiatry is very depleted, especially if you talk about child and adolescent psychiatry services."
Duffy says even where service is available, there can be another obstacle - the willingness of a person to get the help they need. "If you do not have people onboard with wanting to obtain services, it's very difficult in this country to make somebody take services," Duffy says. "If you look at, like emergency protective custody where the courts take over and say you have to receive services. That's only for people nowadays who are acutely suicidal or acutely homicidal."

Sheena Dooley of the Iowa Watchdog site wrote a personal essay about how hard it can be to receive mental health services in Iowa.

Iowa earned a D for its mental health services in the most recent National Alliance on Mental Illness evaluation, which was released in 2009. It earned an "F" in consumer and family empowerment, one of four areas assessed by the national organization. The report estimated nearly 105,000 Iowans suffer from a serious mental illness at a time when there are only about 1,000 psychiatric beds among public and nonprofit providers. The shortage is so severe that the state has to ship its most needy patients hundreds of miles to other states for treatment.
Earlier this year, Iowa lawmakers passed a measure to reform the state's mental health system. It does away with a county-by-county system, in which property taxpayers are on the hook to pay for the services, and replaces it with a regional state-funded system starting next summer. But it fails to address the state's most pressing issues, including funding and a shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health workers, which leads to long waiting lists. It also lacks the outreach the mentally ill need to find their way to the proper resources.

Similar problems affect most other states.

LaPierre may not realize that the U.S. already has a federal database of people considered too mentally ill to own a firearm. Sarah Kliff explained here,

Thirty states (including Virginia) now either authorize or require reporting mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Those are the states in dark red below. Another eight states, in lighter red, authorize or require reporting of mental health records to a separate, state-level database. [...]
The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to require state agencies to report data. The most it can do is offer funding - or withhold dollars - in an attempt to entice states to participate, just as they did with the law after the Virginia Tech shooting.
Many anti-gun advocates push for better mental health reporting, including Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It recommended in a November 2011 report that "Congress should significantly increase both the federal funding available to assist record sharing and the penalties for states that do not comply, and tie them to far more ambitious reporting targets."

Even if this system worked perfectly, mentally ill adolescents or young adults might still have easy access to guns legally purchased by their parents and stored at home.

Under NRA-backed policies like Iowa's 2010 "shall issue" law, county sheriffs no longer have discretion to deny a concealed weapons permit to people who may suffer from a dangerous mental illness. Since 2010 the number of Iowans licensed to carry a concealed weapon has more than tripled to nearly 5 percent of the population. The Associated Press reported last weekend,

While the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits mentally ill people from possessing firearms, it specifies that people can be deprived of that right only if they have been declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to an institution for the mentally ill.
The FBI database, which is used for background checks on applicants for permits to own and carry weapons in Iowa and other states, flags applicants with the two disqualifying mental health statuses.
During 2011, Iowa clerk of court offices transmitted to the FBI database 2,369 mental health disqualification records, said Ross Loder, bureau chief of the Iowa Department of Public Safety. As a practical matter, the system includes few such records generated before 2011, he said.
Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner said, "Absolutely that is a concern. Mental illness is a key factor in most of the mass murders" such as the fatal school shootings Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn.
Johnson County sheriff's Maj. Steve Dolezal said the limitations that the "shall issue" law places on sheriffs' discretion in issuing gun permits is especially harmful in the case of applicants with mental health issues.
"We've lost the ability to take input from family, friends, neighbors and employers - the people with the best insights into an applicant's mental health status," Dolezal said.
Gardner said jail and prison populations include a high percentage of people suffering from mental illness. In most cases, he said, "they don't get any treatment until they come to me."

Politicians will talk a lot about improving mental health services, but at a time of fiscal austerity, I'll be surprised if Congress allocates significant new resources to this problem.

We'll know which Iowa politicians are serious about tackling this issue during the coming legislative session. Our state's reserve accounts are full, with a strong budget surplus projected for the next fiscal year. Who will support increasing funding for mental health care, and who will say we "can't afford" it while proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts?

Gun control?

During the past 30 years, most mass shootings in the U.S. have involved guns obtained legally, in most cases semiautomatic handguns or assault weapons. High-capacity ammunition clips have enabled some shooters to kill many people before needing to reload. Australia experienced "faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings" after a 1996 massacre inspired stricter gun laws. Could anything like that happen in the U.S.?

LaPierre ruled out any additional restrictions on the ownership of guns and ammunition, but some people believe his tone-deaf performance made gun control more politically achievable.

I don't care how many public relations professionals or other people mocked LaPierre's speech. I will eat my hat if any significant gun control passes in the coming year or the coming decade, for that matter. My money's on no assault weapons ban, no ban on high-capacity magazines for otherwise legal guns, no closing the gun show loophole, no improvements current law on background checks.

Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate have vowed to try to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, but the NRA has an iron grip on all Republicans and some Democrats in Congress and most state legislatures. To my knowledge, no prominent political figure has resigned from the NRA over LaPierre's absolutist position following the Connecticut shooting. (In contrast, former President George H.W. Bush resigned his NRA membership shortly after the deadly 1995 bombing at a federal building in Oklahoma City. Bush objected to LaPierre's "vicious slander" of federal agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.)

Conservative dissident David Frum noted that "it's not hard" to buy a gun in Canada, "Yet these few barriers cut rate of gun violence by more than half." This one-page website outlines how to get a gun license in Canada.

Basically you just need to pass a short (though important) safety course, and then mail away for a license. When you're approved you'll get it in the mail and you can go shopping.
The course you will take is called the CFSC, that's short for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and the license you'll get is called a PAL short for Possession and Acquisition License. [...]
If you want to own a handgun, or other "restricted" firearms in Canada you need to pass a second course called the CRFSC (the R is for Restricted,) and pay a bit more on the application to get a "special kind" of PAL which allows you to buy restricted firearms. Generally it's called an RPAL, you can guess what the R in front is for. Although an RPAL is just a normal PAL which says "Restricted" on the back under the sections that list what types of firearms you are allowed to acquire or possess. [...]
Most people simply take a one day class (usually a Saturday), that includes watching a video, listening to an instructor, and going over a book. You know, typical classroom sort of stuff. It's pretty low key, and most people have a lot of fun. It's usually costs around $75, though the price can certainly vary, particularly from province to province. I think my wife paid only $20.

I find it depressing that these common-sense safeguards are so far outside the bounds of American political discourse.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. Steve Marmel made a good point:

Can you imagine if the "scary black president" had suggested putting an armed guard at every school or proposed an $18 Billion dollar plan without an idea how to pay for it?
We'd be hearing "Marxism!" "Police State!" "Debt!"
But it wasn't Obama. It was the ghoul mouthpiece for the NRA, so the GOP is silent.

Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee chair rules out death penalty bill

desmoinesdem — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:35:00 GMT

Incoming Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Rob Hogg confirmed this week that his committee will not take up a bill to reinstate the death penalty in Iowa. Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson is not deterred.
On Monday, Sorenson helped arrange a meeting with Governor Terry Branstad and a press conference featuring the parents of several Iowa children who have been abducted and killed. The parents of Elizabeth Collins, one of two girls murdered this summer in northeast Iowa, see the death penalty as a way to protect children. Sorenson will introduce a bill restoring capital punishment for people who commit two Class A felonies. Mike Wiser reported,

Assistant Director of the Department of Corrections Fred Scaletta said there are 67 people in the Iowa prison system convicted of two or more Class A felonies. There are 636 inmates serving life without parole and, as of Monday, 8,231 people incarcerated the system. [...]
Sorenson said he recognizes that it's an "uphill battle" to get the death penalty back on the books.
He said that will be only one aim of the legislation that also will include better tracking of people once they get out of prison and potential improvements to statewide notification systems such as Amber Alert. He said specifics are forthcoming.

Branstad made clear last week that he agrees with Sorenson, but won't push hard for the death penalty because the bill has poor prospects in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate. Speaking to Rod Boshart, Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Hogg explained why he opposes capital punishment.

"The bottom line for me is Iowa hasn't had it for over 40 years, there's bipartisan opposition and we already have enough killing. I don't think more killing helps and in Iowa it's very clear we have life in prison without the possibility of parole," he said. [...]
"They are obviously free to file bills," Hogg said Monday. "The Senate Judiciary Committee under my chairman is not going to be taking up that bill for consideration."
Hogg said he wanted to see the state boost its funding for public safety and make certain law enforcement agencies are "deploying all the resources of state government to catch the perpetrator or perpetrators of that offense. We've got to find them and bring them to justice. To me, that's my bigger concern than having a debate about the death penalty. We've got to find who committed those offenses and bring them to justice."
Hogg added that he is not convinced that a death penalty, even limited to certain circumstances, would deter crimes from being committed as proponents claim.
"To my knowledge, there is no data that supports the concept that the death penalty is a deterrent at all," the Cedar Rapids Democrat said.
"There are cases where people have actually taken people from Iowa and killed them in other states where there was a death penalty. I think that pretty well shows that there's no deterrent value there," Hogg added. "The type of crazy, heinous people who commit these types of offenses, I don't think they're paying attention to whether the state has a death penalty or not and I've never seen any data that supports that. The experts I've talked to who track this stuff very carefully say that there is no positive deterrent effect."

I understand why many people support the death penalty, especially those who went through the unimaginable hell of losing a loved one through homicide. A lot of research supports Hogg's position, though.

For example, compare the homicide rates in California, New York and Texas, as the National Research Council has done. From 1974 to 2009, the homicide rates in those three states tracked virtually identically - going up at the same time in the late 1970s and late 1980s and all declining dramatically since then.
Yet during that time Texas had 447 executions and New York had none; California had 13. Clearly, something other than executions has had an effect on declining murder rates. And that clearly is what we should focus on.
That pattern holds up in comparisons of Canada and the United States, too.
Murder rates in Canada have gone up and down in virtual lockstep with U.S. rates over the years. Yet Canada has had no executions since 1962. In fact, during the period just after the United States reinstated the death penalty in 1976, murder rates remained high in the United States while declining in Canada.
Murder rates in the United States began a real decline in the 1990s, and research suggests multiple factors are involved.
For example, crime experts attribute the steep decline in violent crime that began in 1993 to new police strategies such as targeted police patrols of gun-crime hot spots and effective enforcement of gun laws.

Regardless of the outcome in the state legislature, I expect Sorenson's crusade to reinstate the death penalty to feature prominently in his 2014 campaign for re-election in Iowa Senate district 13.

UPDATE: An unsigned editorial in the Iowa City Press-Citizen highlights other reasons not to reinstate capital punishment.

Among the Iowa politicians supporting the death penalty, the primary arguments seem to be 1) providing closure for the families of the victims and 2) providing a deterrent that would cause kidnappers and rapists to think twice about killing their victims.
But among all the studies produced by the legal community, the jury is still out on the question of whether the death penalty provides any deterrence whatsoever. Those studies, instead, show overwhelming evidence that death penalty laws have been discriminatory toward racial minorities as well as toward anyone who can't afford an attorney.
The studies likewise show overwhelmingly that the many trials and appeals necessary to secure an execution make it far more expensive for any state and the nation to house death row inmates than to house prisoners who face life without the possibility of parole.

Detectives and prosecutors have also used the threat of seeking the death penalty to elicit false confessions.

Iowa political reaction to the Sandy Hook school massacre (updated)

desmoinesdem — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:55:00 GMT

The horrific mass killing at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut has dominated news coverage since Friday, and almost everyone I know has been talking about the tragedy. But only a few Iowa politicians have publicly discussed the events or possible ways to prevent similar crimes.

Remarks by Senator Tom Harkin, Representative Dave Loebsack, State Senator Rob Hogg, and Governor Terry Branstad are after the jump. I'm disappointed but not surprised that the governor is not open to any new restrictions on assault weapons or large ammunition clips. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who like Branstad has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, today called for moving "beyond rhetoric" on gun control. His comments are also below.

I've sought comment from other members of Iowa's Congressional delegation and will update this post if I hear back from any of them. UPDATE: Added Representative Bruce Braley's comments below.

SECOND UPDATE: Added Senator Chuck Grassley's comments during a December 17 radio interview.

LATER UPDATE: Added comments from Iowa Department of Education Director Jason Glass.
Senator Tom Harkin's office sent out this press release on December 17:

"We grieve as a nation for the tragedy that unfolded Friday in Newtown. As a father and grandfather, I struggle to process this event, and send my deepest sympathies to each and every family impacted. I join them in questioning what we can do to prevent future tragedies. I also salute the teachers and first responders, who acted so heroically in the face of such terror.
"Though the details of this tragedy are still unfolding, one thing is clear: it is time to address increasing gun violence in this country. As a hunter, I know that the recreational use and collection of guns is important to many Iowans and I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun owners. But we need to ask whether people need unlimited access to any arms, including those capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in a very short time. We can support gun rights while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer. Each of these goals is important and I believe that they can be accomplished simultaneously.
"Another issue we simply cannot ignore is the need to renew our focus on mental health services in our country with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention. In the coming days, I will take a closer look at how the federal government can ensure that people and communities who need help for mental health conditions have timely access to the services they require and that those suffering after this tragedy also have the resources they need to heal."

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) responded to my request for comment with this statement:

"As a father and grandfather, it is truly heart wrenching to think of what the parents are going through. Our entire nation's thanks go to the first responders, teachers and administrators who acted so heroically to protect children. While there are no quick fixes, it is time for our country to have a national conversation about how to address the troubling frequency with which lives have been cut short by senseless violence. We must sit down and look at proposals that will protect Iowans' well-established Second Amendment rights while keeping these sorts of horrific attacks from taking place. I believe any conversation must look at ways to deal with military-style assault weapons and extended clips as well as mental health care. There is a difference between responsible gun owners and those who would use them to carry out horrific acts such as what happened in Newtown. This is not a matter of politics - it is about ensuring the safety of our children and our communities."

Both Harkin and Loebsack have "F" ratings from the National Rifle Association.

UPDATE: So does Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01). He responded to my request with these comments:

"We can't guarantee that mass shootings will never happen again in our country, but we need to try. Sandy Hook cannot become yet another footnote in the history of gun violence in America. It's a call to action for all of us.
"I'm willing to listen to every reasonable idea and recommendation. The stakes are too high, the cost is too great, and failing to act is not an option.
"In the weeks to come, I'll be reaching out to constituents, colleagues, experts, and professionals to address this problem from all angles. Real solutions can only be found if we put politics aside and work across ideological lines to cooperate, whether it's on improving mental health care or finding a reasonable common ground on gun control. The victims of these terrible crimes deserve nothing less than our best efforts," said Rep. Bruce Braley.

Governor Terry Branstad wants Iowa schools "to review their school safety plans."

"The thoughts and prayers of all Iowans are with the families and friends of the innocent victims of this senseless tragedy," Branstad said today. "While it is difficult to understand such an evil act, we do know our children and grandchildren remain our most precious gifts and ensuring their safety in our communities is absolutely critical." [...]
Responding to questions from reporters, Branstad said he was not prepared to endorse proposals to provide guns to teachers and school administrators, or to propose new gun control laws. Furthermore, Schouten expressed reservations about providing guns to school staff, saying their first obligation is to provide instruction for students, while law enforcement personnel are trained to respond to such situations.
Branstad said he believes the Connecticut deaths underscore the need for anti-bullying efforts in schools, and to provide mental health care in an effort to address the root cause of school shootings.
The governor also said he would caution the media about its coverage of mass shootings because of concerns about copycat crimes.
"The extreme coverage of this sometimes causes others to come up with ideas," he said, expressing concerns about the impact on mentally unstable people.
"I think we all need to be very vigilant and careful about this," he added.

Incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Rob Hogg told the Des Moines Register that

it's important not to rush to action in response to such a tragedy and he wants legislators to be patient and careful in addressing school safety issues.
"The things we are going to be interested in or that I am going to be interested in as chair of the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee, are proven strategies for reducing violence and reducing gun violence," Hogg said. "We want some expertise on how to advise us on how to attack these problems; listen to school experts; listen to law enforcement experts; listen to experts on crime and violence."
He added that he hopes that Senate Democrats also focus on mental health treatment. [...]
Hogg said that reinstating Iowa's death penalty, which was abolished in 1965, won't be considered by the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee. He noted that people convicted of first-degree murder are sentenced to life in prison.
He said he wouldn't absolutely rule out the idea of providing firearms to school staffers - explaining he wants to hear the experts views on the issue - but it's not an approach he is personally interested in seeing. He also said that while some Democrats support additional gun control laws, he's not sure such an approach is politically feasible.

Senator Joe Manchin on MSNBC on December 17:

"I just came with my family from deer hunting," Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I've never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don't get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It's common sense. It's time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way." [...]
Manchin, who declined to say what specific restrictions he would support, said the NRA should have a role in the debate over legislative changes to gun law. [...]
"I don't know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle," he said. "I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

The most interesting piece I've read about the constitutional debate on guns is by Akhil Reed Amar.

UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley spoke to Ryan Schlader of WMT Radio in Cedar Rapids on December 17. He endorsed the idea of a commission or task force to study the problem, saying outgoing Senator Joe Lieberman and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani could lead such a commission. He called for letting the family grieve and not politicizing the tragedy. He noted that it's already illegal to have guns close to a school and that Connecticut has stricter gun control laws than many other states. He urged people to look at the broader American culture (less civility and "family breakdown"). The audio link is here.

DECEMBER 19 UPDATE: Braley commented further on policies related to gun violence and mental health.

"I am willing to listen to every reasonable idea and recommendation because the stakes are too high, the costs are too great and failing to act is not an option," Braley said. "In the weeks to come I'll be reaching out to my constituents, my colleagues, to experts and professionals to address this problem from all angles."
That could mean pursuing improved mental health care services and seeking a "reasoned common ground on gun regulation," he said.
More immediately, he said he would sign on as a cosponsor to a bill restricting high-capacity ammunition clips, which were used by the gunman in the Newtown shooting and other recent mass-murder incidents. [...]
Braley's efforts in the coming weeks will include a town-hall meeting on gun regulation in Iowa's 1st District that he said he hoped representatives of the National Rifle Association would attend.

President Barack Obama named Vice President Joe Biden to lead a new working group on gun violence.

The president stressed that the group would develop a holistic approach to preventing future violence that included not just an examination of gun laws, but mental-health policies and services and the entertainment industry.
"We're going to need to look closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence," Obama said, adding that the effort would "begin inside the home and inside our hearts."
The selection of Biden to head the commission is a clear indication that much of the group's focus will center around gun laws. The vice president was a key player in the effort to pass the federal assault weapons ban in 1994, earning him an "F" grade from the National Rifle Association. In 2008, the NRA deemed him the "most anti-gun vice president in American history," decrying Biden's votes to impose a waiting period on handgun sales and his vote to ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Obama noted that public opinion polls showed support for an assault weapons ban, limits on the size of ammunition clips, and waiting periods for gun purchases.
"There is already a growing consensus for reform," Obama said.

Speaking to Radio Iowa's Matt Kelley, Iowa Department of Education Director Jason Glass called for administrators to focus on safety systems.

Glass says if guns are allowed into schools, they should carried by trained law officers.
"I am not an advocate of arming teachers," Glass says. "We need to have guns in the hands of trained professionals who are peace officers. That's the individuals who should be carrying weapons in any of our schools."
Glass is advocating a thoughtful appraisal of school safety and says he has NO immediate plans for legislative requests on the subject. Glass is cautioning against making snap decisions.
"I think a prudent postion is to make sure our schools have quality safety systems in place," he says. "That's a good place to start and then I think a prudent reaction, too, is if we are going to have armed individuals within our schools to protect children, we make sure those are peace officers and they're trained. We don't want to create a situation where we have the wild, wild west operating in our schools."
Glass says the safety procedures in place at the Connecticut school saved lives.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association bragged to Fox News that donations have surged since the school shooting in Connecticut.

Gunman commits worst U.S. school massacre ever

desmoinesdem — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:09:54 GMT

Details are sketchy, but at least one gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut this morning, reportedly killing more than 20 people. As of noon central time, the latest reports indicate that 18 children may have been murdered along with nine adults, including the killer.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at a briefing, "today is not the day" to discuss gun control legislation. Of course it isn't. Tomorrow won't be the right time either, and neither will next week or next month or next year. Democratic Party officials are no longer willing to advocate for gun control in public, and the Republican Party might as well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association. Americans just have to accept that dangerously unstable or mentally ill people will be able to acquire almost any kind of weapons and ammunition, and from time to time will slaughter innocent people.

I can't imagine what those children and the victims' families are going through in Connecticut, and I'm too upset to look up more links about this tragedy. Feel free to share your own reasoned comments or enraged rants in this thread.

UPDATE: Shooter Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults, including his mother, before apparently killing himself. A lot of details and links are on this page at the Mother Jones site.

Conservatives are quick to say crimes like these aren't about guns. Not holding my breath waiting for them to increase funding for mental health services.

After Australia reformed its gun laws in 1996, gun-related homicides and suicides began to decline more sharply, even as the overall homicide rate continued to drop. There have not been any mass shootings in Australia since that time.

Slim chance for bringing death penalty back to Iowa

desmoinesdem — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:50:00 GMT

State Senator Kent Sorenson announced last week that he will file a bill to reinstate the death penalty. However, neither Democratic leaders in the Iowa Senate nor Republican leaders in the Iowa House have taken up the call.
Yesterday an autopsy confirmed that bodies hunters found in northeast Iowa woods last week were Elizabeth Collins and Lyric Cook, two cousins who went missing in July. The girls' disappearance was a major news story throughout Iowa, and the tragedy inspired Sorenson to try to pass a death penalty bill. In his opinion, Elizabeth and Lyric might still be alive if whoever killed them had known that he might face the death penalty.

Research on homicide rates in states with and without the death penalty shows no evidence that capital punishment deters violent crime. However, heinous crimes like the murder of children often fuel public support for the death penalty. Governor Terry Branstad made capital punishment a central issue in his fourth campaign for governor in 1994, after a rapist and murderer kidnapped and killed an Iowa girl.

Branstad didn't put much effort behind reinstating the death penalty during his first four terms as governor and hasn't raised the issue since being elected to a fifth term in 2010. At his weekly press conference yesterday, he made clear he's not going to push for this change next year either.

"I like to focus on things I think have a realistic chance of being approved and I think considering the present make-up of the senate...that we need to focus on things that I can accomplish in the next couple of years," Branstad says.
Branstad, a Republican, made the issue a central focus of his 1994 campaign, calling for a limited death penalty for those convicted of two "Class A" felonies, like kidnapping and then the murder of the victim. [...]
"My position is well-known and my position has been consistent throughout the last 20 or 25 years," Branstad says. "And my position is consistent with my philosophy of protecting innocent human life and trying to prevent dangerous criminals from committing further murders."
Branstad has long argued his limited death penalty would be a deterrent to those who commit violent crimes and kill the victim in hopes of covering up the crime.
"That is the limited instance when I think the death penalty could be appropriate," Branstad says. "I also recognize the political realities of the General Assembly and that under the present make-up of the General Assembly, that's not likely to happen."

Senate Democrats had no comment on Sorenson's remarks. Any bill on the death penalty would have to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee's former chair, Gene Fraise, retired from the legislature. Democrats have not yet decided who will lead the committee next year.

Iowa House Republican leaders did not respond to my request for comment on whether they will support a capital punishment bill during the upcoming legislative session. To my knowledge, neither Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen nor incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair Chip Baltimore has echoed Sorenson's call for bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. I couldn't find any public record of Baltimore speaking about capital punishment in the past.

NAACP leaders talk voting rights, race disparity with Branstad

desmoinesdem — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:40:10 GMT

Leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged Governor Terry Branstad yesterday to change Iowa's extreme restrictions on voting rights for ex-felons and to address the huge race disparity in Iowa incarceration rates.
Since Branstad published an executive order disenfranchising ex-felons on his first day back in office in 2011, only a handful of Iowans have regained their right to vote after completing prison sentences. Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson reported yesterday,

About 13,000 Iowans who would have been eligible to vote four years ago were barred from voting in this year's election. Iowa is one of only four states that do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who've done their time.

Most people who have been imprisoned have pressing concerns like securing a job and a place to live. They are unlikely to have the resources to fill out Iowa's lengthy and complicated application to get back their voting rights. One man couldn't navigate the process even after paying an attorney $500 to help. The Iowa Justice Reform Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa have been trying to address this issue, but the NAACP delegation was able to get a meeting with the governor and some attention from journalists.

The Iowa and national NAACP leaders appealed to Branstad's sense of fairness and justice.

"Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitating people," says Dedric Doolin, president of the Cedar Rapids branch of the NAACP, "and how do you rehabilitate somebody if you continue to have them marked as a prisoner for the rest of their life?" [...]
"The litany of things that (Branstad) has on his list covers so many areas that it's near impossible for the average citizen, whether they're in prison or not, to respond to the issues that they're asking for in the application," says Arnold Woods, Jr. of Des Moines, president of the Iowa/Nebraska chapter of the NAACP.
But Woods says Branstad indicated one change in the process - that a felon need only be current in paying restitution rather than requiring them to pay it all before they can apply to get their voting rights back.

Announcing the new policy in January 2011, Branstad clearly stated that ex-felons must pay full court costs and restitution (if their felony crime involved a victim) before voting rights can be restored. Yesterday the governor's staff airbrushed that history:

The governor's office, meanwhile said in a statement Monday afternoon that its position has always been that voting rights could be restored if felons were current on their restitution payments.
There have been no applications submitted by felons who were merely current on such payments since the governor signed the executive order, however.

Gee, I wonder why there have been "no applications submitted by felons who were merely current on such payments." Maybe it's because it says near the beginning of Iowa's 31-question "Streamlined Application for Restoration of Citizenship Rights":

You must pay all court fines, restitution, and court costs before you apply. You must include documentation verifying payment of costs, fines, and restitution.

Branstad defended his policy as protecting "society."

The governor told the group he is willing to look at being fair to felons by streamlining the process, although he didn't pledge any specifics. Branstad does believe he had to think of others, too. He said, 'We also think it's fair to society that when somebody commits a crime like that, that they have to earn their rights by having completed the sentence and the requirements of the sentence."

It hardly seems fair to block more than 99 percent of Iowa felons from voting for the rest of their lives. The U.S. banned poll taxes decades ago, because basic civil rights should not be contingent on one's financial means. During the last 15 years, 23 states have expanded voter eligibility for felons.

Branstad's policy disproportionately affects African-Americans, who are much more likely than Caucasians to be charged with felonies and sent to prison:

On prison disparities, the governor encouraged the group to work with the attorney general and county attorneys, who are responsible for charging people accused of crimes and bringing cases to trial.
In its press conference the NAACP, noted that one in 13 black Iowans are incarcerated, compared to one in 110 Caucasians - placing the among the highest in the country when it comes to the percentage of black residents in prison.
"We're first in the nation in the percentage of incarcerated African Americans," Woods said. "We think that is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The NAACP is anxious to get resolution to this issue."

A 2007 study by the Sentencing Project showed that "blacks in Iowa are imprisoned at 13.6 times the white rate in Iowa, the widest disparity in the nation." Former Governor Chet Culver's administration should have done more to address this problem. By urging the NAACP to take their complaints to county attorneys and Attorney General Tom Miller, Branstad signaled yesterday that he does not plan to lead on the issue.

Judge Robert Pratt legacy thread

desmoinesdem — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:05:00 GMT

Former U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose was sworn in yesterday as a federal judge. She is the youngest federal judge currently serving as well as the first woman on the bench in the Southern District of Iowa. The Senate confirmed Rose in September by 89 votes to 1.

In remarks prepared for Rose's investiture, Senator Tom Harkin predicted her "legal skills and knowledge" and "great sense of justice and fairness" would make her a "superb judge." He recommended Rose for U.S. attorney and later put her on the short list for the federal judgeship.

I was struck by Harkin's comments about the retired Judge Robert Pratt, whom Rose replaces. I enclose those comments below, along with links on some of Pratt's most influential decisions.
Excerpt from remarks Senator Harkin prepared for delivery on November 13:

"I first want to acknowledge the enormous contributions of the person whose seat you are taking, my friend, Judge Robert Pratt. Judge Pratt has been an outstanding jurist who has brought a genuine passion and leadership for justice to Iowa and the country.
"During Judge Pratt's tenure as U.S. District Court Judge, he has written many decisions, which have transformed the law for the better, for our entire nation. There are many I could cite, but two stand out for the beauty and force of his writing, and for their impact on our nation's jurisprudence: the Prison Fellowship Ministries case and the decision regarding sentencing guidelines in the Gall case. The Gall case gave to judges the power to weigh different factors in determining fair and just sentences, as opposed to some mechanical formula. In other words, judges should judge! And I hope, Judge Rose, you will learn from Judge Pratt's experience, wisdom, and compassion."

The Prison Fellowship Ministries case started in 2003, when the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a federal lawsuit "challenging the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a publicly supported, pervasively religious program in Iowa's Newton Correctional Facility."

Inmates who participated in IFI were housed in a separate prison unit, where they were immersed in "24-hour per day Christ-centered Bible-based programming" conducted by IFI employees, who were required by policy to be Christian. Trial was held between late October and early December 2005. On June 2, 2006, the district court held that the program violated the Establishment Clause, expelled the program from the prison, and directed IFI to repay the Department of Corrections the $1.5 million that it had been paid by the State. Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in June 2006.

The U.S. Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Pratt's ruling in a December 2007 decision.

The court held that Iowa's involvement with IFI violated the Establishment Clause by supporting the indoctrination of inmates and IFI's discrimination against non-Christian inmates. The court also held that, while IFI had to return funds it received from Iowa after the district court issued its decision, it could not be compelled to return funds it had received earlier. In January 2008, the Eighth Circuit denied Defendants' petition for rehearing en banc, which asked the entire Eighth Circuit to review the case. Defendants declined to seek review of the decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2008, Iowa terminated the IFI program.

Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute summarized the key facts of Gall v United States here. The case involved defendant Brian Michael Gall, who sold ecstasy for about eight months in 2000 (when he was a college sophomore) but left the drug-dealing ring years before he was investigated. The key question was,

Can a district court impose a sentence outside of the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines without providing an extraordinary reason to justify the deviation?

Pratt had long opposed strict sentencing guidelines for those who committed drug-related offenses, writing in 1999,

I have only been a federal judge for a short time. In that time, however, I have learned that sentencing offenders under the guidelines is an emotionally draining experience that requires consideration of the crime and past conduct of the defendant. Consideration must also be given to the effect of guideline sentencing on our country. What have we done by creating a system that many federal judges have rejected as unfair, inefficient and, as a practical matter, ineffective in eliminating drug use and drug-related crime?
As taxpayers, we might be willing to foot the enormous bill for the "war on drugs" if we had seen results, but as the explosion of meth crimes in Iowa illustrates, the guidelines have not helped to cut drug use or crime. [...]
How did it happen that we built a system that incarcerates our fellow citizens for inordinately long periods of time, wastes huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, ruins lives, and does not accomplish the stated purpose, i.e. to end the illegal consumption of drugs?

When sentencing Gall, Judge Pratt

gave particular weight to Gall's voluntary withdrawal from the drug conspiracy, his "exemplary" behavior while on bond, the public support of his family and friends, the lack of any other criminal history, and his immaturity at the time of the drug conspiracy, and sentenced Gall to three years probation and required drug and alcohol testing and counseling - a sentence far below the sentence range [of 30 to 37 months in prison] recommended by the Guidelines.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Pratt's ruling, on the grounds that "extraordinary justifications" would be needed to support such a large departure from federal sentencing guidelines. However, a 7-2 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Gall's sentence was reasonable and that Judge Pratt had appropriately explained his reasons for sentencing the defendant to probation.

A few other influential rulings by Pratt deserve mention. After Iowa legislators passed and Governor Chet Culver signed into law new campaign finance disclosure rules in 2010, Iowa Right to Life filed a federal lawsuit claiming the Iowa law places unconstitutional restrictions on corporate political speech. Pratt denied Iowa Right to Life's request to prevent the rules from going into effect for the 2010 campaign. In the summer of 2011, the judge upheld the legislation.

He agreed with lawyers representing the state that such disclosures enhance the transparency of elections while only imposing a reasonable burden on corporations and unions. He said the disclosure requirements were similar to those upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in last year's case, and Iowa Right to Life failed to show that getting approval from its board would in any way change its operations.
Pratt also upheld an Iowa law that bars corporations from giving money directly to campaigns, saying the state's interest in preventing corruption outweighs free speech concerns.

Shortly after the 2010 general election, Indiana attorney and Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four Iowans, challenging Iowa's system for selecting state judges. It didn't take Pratt long to dismiss that lawsuit, calling the plaintiffs' arguments "fatally flawed." You can read that 35-page ruling here (pdf); Bleeding Heartland summarized key points here. In April 2012, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of that lawsuit.

To sum up, Rose has big shoes to fill.

Please share any relevant comments in this thread.