Bleeding Heartland - gay marriage

Another Iowa Supreme Court ruling for equality (updated)

desmoinesdem — Mon, 06 May 2013 12:25:00 GMT

In a decision announced on Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the Iowa Department of Public Health to refuse to list a non-birthing lesbian spouse on a child's birth certificate. Details on this nearly unanimous ruling are after the jump. I was intrigued by how Governor Terry Branstad's three appointees from 2011 handled this case.
Heather and Melissa Gartner filed this lawsuit in 2010 after the Iowa Department of Public Health declined to list Melissa on the birth certificate of daughter MacKenzie. The baby was conceived using an anonymous sperm donor and carried by Heather Gartner after the two women had been legally married in Iowa.

Polk County District Court Judge Eliza Ovrom found in favor of the Gartners last year. Bleeding Heartland posted excerpts from her ruling here. Judge Ovrom noted that under Iowa law, a married man is considered the father of his wife's baby, even where there is no chance that he could be the biological father. The district court ruling pointed out that the Iowa Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Varnum v Brien ordered that "remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage." Since birth certificates are "the primary way to demonstrate legal parentage," Judge Ovrom found in favor of the Gartners, although she did not rule on constitutional arguments in the Gartners' lawsuit.

The Iowa Department of Public Health appealed the ruling and asked the district court to stay the enforcement of its order. Judge Ovrom declined to stay her order that the department issue a new birth certificate to the Gartners but "but did grant the stay as to other birth certificates the Department may issue," on the grounds that "administrative problems would arise if the Department issued birth certificates to other married lesbian couples and [the Iowa Supreme Court] subsequently reversed the district court's decision."

Ryan Koopmans posted briefs from both sides in this case at the On Brief blog, which covers "appellate litigation, with a focus on the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit."

Justice David Wiggins wrote the majority opinion; the full text is available here (pdf). Justices Brent Appel, Daryl Hecht, and Mark Cady joined Wiggins' opinion. All four were part of the unanimous Varnum v Brien ruling in 2009, which Cady wrote. Key passage:

On appeal, we conclude that we cannot interpret the statute in the same manner as the district court. However, we do find section 144.13(2) as applied to married lesbian couples violates the equal protection clauses found in article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. Accordingly, the Department must presumptively list on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage when the child was born to one of the spouses during their marriage. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court ordering the Department to issue a birth certificate naming both spouses as parents. Therefore, we remand the case to the district court, order the district court to lift the stay, and order the district court to remand the case to the Department for issuance of a birth certificate also listing the nonbirthing spouse as the child's parent.

After summarizing key facts of the case, Wiggins wrote on page 9 that the Iowa Department of Public Health's rulemaking power does not give it the authority to interpret "all statutory language" and specifically the language at issue in this case. On page 10 the ruling notes that it is the judiciary's task to determine whether a statute or administrative rule is unconstitutional. A discussion of case law and common law on the "presumption of parentage" follows. In many situations, married men are recognized as legal fathers of children despite a lack of biological connection to those children.

Other states that have legalized same-sex marriage have also "extended the "marital' parentage presumption to same-sex couples," the court ruling notes on page 15.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Ovrom's interpretation of an Iowa statute for reasons explained on pages 16 through 19. But in a constitutional analysis on pages 19 through 27, the court found that the statute applied by the Iowa Department of Public Health

fails to comport with the guarantees of equal protection under article 1, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. The Department has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for refusing to list on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage, when the child was conceived using an anonymous sperm donor and was born to the other spouse during the marriage. Thus, the language in section 144.13(2) limiting the requirement to "the name of the husband" on the birth certificate is unconstitutional as applied to married lesbian couples who have a child born to them during marriage.

The Supreme Court did not strike down that part of state law, but opted to "preserve it as to married opposite-sex couples and require the Department to apply the statute to married lesbian couples." Some gay male couple may have to file a separate lawsuit for the right to have both fathers listed on a child's birth certificate.

As I mentioned above, the three other Supreme Court justices who were on the court in 2009 joined Justice Wiggins' ruling. Justice Edward Mansfield, whom Governor Terry Branstad appointed in 2011, wrote a short concurring opinion, which I enclose in full:

The Iowa Department of Public Health accepts the decision in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), for purposes of this appeal. I agree that if Varnum is the law, then Iowa Code section 144.13(2) cannot be constitutionally applied to deny Melissa Gartner's request to be listed as parent on the birth certificate of the child delivered by her same-sex spouse. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment in this case.

Another Branstad appointee from 2011, Justice Thomas Waterman, joined Mansfield's "special concurrence."

I read this concurrence to imply that Mansfield and Waterman don't necessarily agree with the equal protection arguments in Varnum or in Wiggins' latest decision. Rather, they simply state that if one accepts Varnum, one can't support the Iowa Department of Public Health's action with respect to the Gartners or other same-sex couples.

The court ruling noted that Justice Bruce Zager "takes no part." Zager was the third justice Branstad appointed in 2011. He has been seen as the court's "swing vote."

I couldn't find any record of Zager citing a conflict of interest or some specific reason not to concur with or dissent from this ruling. I noticed that he "took no part" in another 6-0 Iowa Supreme Court ruling last year. I don't know what the protocol is for a justice to decline to take part in a ruling. If Zager doesn't agree with either Wiggins' or Mansfield's opinion regarding the Gartners' case against the Iowa Department of Public Health, I'd be interested in hearing why. Surely this won't be the last equal protection case the Iowa Supreme Court hears in connection with LGBT couples.

UPDATE: Ryan Koopmans, a litigation specialist at the Nyemaster Goode law firm in Des Moines, confirmed that Iowa Supreme Court justices who take no part in a ruling have a specific reason for recusing themselves. The Iowa Judicial Branch does not publicize reasons for a justice's recusal. Koopmans speculated that Zager declined to take part because his daughter is a partner at the Davis Brown law firm. Along with attorneys from the Chicago-based advocacy organization Lambda Legal, Sharon K. Malheiro of the Davis Brown firm represented the Gartners in this case. Malheiro is also a founder and board chair of the LGBT advocacy group One Iowa.

SECOND UPDATE: An alert reader pointed out that Malheiro confirmed on Facebook that Zager recuses himself from any case involving the Davis Brown law firm, because his daughter is an attorney there.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

THIRD UPDATE: Excerpt from an unsigned Des Moines Register editorial on May 8:

One of the most compelling arguments for recognizing marriages of gays and lesbians is that these couples otherwise lose out on the rights granted to heterosexual couples by state and federal governments. One of those is to be legally recognized as the parent of a child conceived in a legal marriage, and the Gartner decision reinforces the wisdom of Varnum.
Thus, it was jarring to read this one-paragraph "special concurrence" by Justice Edward Mansfield: "The Iowa Department of Public Health accepts the decision in Varnum v. Brien ... for purposes of appeal. I agree that if Varnum is the law, Iowa Code section [on birth certificates] cannot be constitutionally applied to deny Melissa Gartner's request to be listed as parent on the birth certificate of the child delivered by her same-sex spouse. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment in this case."
It is hard to see Mansfield's use of the word "if" in this context as anything other than questioning the legitimacy of the Varnum decision.

As mentioned above, the latest court ruling applies only to lesbian married couples. I wonder whether the Iowa Supreme Court would require the Department of Public Health to acknowledge both fathers on a birth certificate if married gay men have a child through a surrogate mother, using either a donor egg or the surrogate mother's egg. According to this report from KCRG, "there's no case law in Iowa pertaining to surrogacy agreements."

Supreme Court marriage linkfest: Federal DOMA doomed?

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:31:00 GMT

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

Lots of links are after the jump, but the enduring sound bite from the day will surely be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment: "You're saying [...] there are two kinds of marriages, the full marriage, and this sort of skim milk marriage."
The Hill posted the full transcript and audio from today's oral arguments here.

The Alliance for Justice posted Ginsburg's point about second-class "skim milk marriage" here.

For the SCOTUS blog, Amy Howe discussed today's hearing in plain English.

More audio clips and analysis of the arguments are on this page of the Alliance for Justice site. Here's what the case is all about:

Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies more than a thousand different different federal rights to legally-married same-sex couples. Those benefits range from Social Security death benefits to the right to take family medical leave. DOMA even can separate spouses of different nationalities.
DOMA also has an impact on estate taxes. DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriage of Edith Windsor to her lifelong partner, Dr. Thea Spyer. As a result, Ms. Windsor was hit with a huge bill for inheritance taxes. Ms. Windsor sued, arguing that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Now age 83, Ms. Windsor has taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in Windsor has the ability to finally recognize that discrimination against LGBT Americans violates the Constitution. Alternatively, the Court could hold that DOMA violates the power of states to define the rights and benefits of their LGBT citizens.

This chart on the New York Times website explains who would be affected by various possible Supreme Court actions. If the court upholds section 3 of the DOMA, nothing changes. If the court strikes down that part of the law, "Married same-sex couples in the nine states that allow such unions, along with the District of Columbia, become subject to more than 1,000 federal laws and programs and start to receive federal benefits." Nothing would change in states where same-sex marriage is banned. A third possibility: "The court could decide that it lacks jurisdiction because the two sides - the plaintiff and the Obama administration - agree that the law is unconstitutional and House Republicans do not have standing to defend it." It's not clear how things would play out after that point.

Incidentally, several of the conservative Supreme Court justices seemed outraged that the Obama administration broke with precent by deciding not to defend a federal law challenged in court.

By the same token, some of the justices sounded uncomfortable "with providing standing to House Republicans seeking to compel enforcement of DOMA."

After listening to today's hearing, most analysts agreed that at least five justices seem prepared to strike down DOMA. Many articles on the hearing are linked here. Sam Baker reported for The Hill,

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, seemed to agree with the argument that DOMA interferes with states' traditional right to define marriage.
"The question is whether the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," Kennedy said.

Adam Liptak and Peter Baker reported for the New York Times,

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most likely holds the decisive vote, returned again and again to the theme that deciding who is married is a matter for the states. The federal government, he said, should respect "the historic commitment of marriage and questions of the rights of children to the states." [...]
If the 1996 law stands, Justice Kennedy said, "you are at real risk with running in conflict with what has always been the essence" of state power, which he said was to regulate marriage, divorce and custody.
All four members of the court's liberal wing questioned the constitutionality of the law, though they largely focused on equal protection principles rather than on the limits of federal power.

That's the good news. But if you support marriage equality in every state, the SCOTUS blog's Tom Goldstein has some bad news for you:

A majority of the Court seems poised in Windsor to invalidate DOMA Section 3 on the theory that the federal government has no interest in adopting a definition of marriage applicable to 1100 statutory provisions that as a practical matter alters the very nature of what it is to be "married." That role, the Court will rule, is historically reserved to the states. So DOMA is a federalism case. [...]
But if DOMA is going to be decided as a federalism case, Hollingsworth becomes a much harder case for the plaintiffs. That ruling in Windsor implies that California should have a parallel right to decide the definition of marriage for itself - i.e., that Proposition 8 should be upheld.
In fact, there is a realistic chance that the Court's most conservative Justices understood that dynamic from the beginning and for that reason voted to grant certiorari in Hollinsgworth. In effect, they would put the Court in the box fully grappling with the implications of a ruling invalidating DOMA. To then also invalidate Proposition 8, the Court would have to go quite far in applying heightened scrutiny and invalidating the traditional definition of marriage, notwithstanding its professed concerns for states' rights.

Before this week, some people had speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts might be open to striking down DOMA. However, today he suggested that gays and lesbians don't need courts to protect their rights anymore.

Looking for another avenue to undercut the case that DOMA was the product of anti-gay animus, Roberts pointed to the "sea change" in public attitudes towards homosexuality and suggested that gays and lesbians were "politically powerful"-a description that would prevent laws dealing with sexual orientation from being subject to heightened scrutiny. "As far as I can tell," Roberts said, "political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case." Until fairly recently, gays and lesbians were barred from employment by states and the federal government, and until 2003, states criminalized homosexual sex-and would still be able to do so, if several of the justices now sitting on the court had their way. Just ask Antonin Scalia, who argued last year that laws criminalizing homosexual sex were constitutional because "for 200 years, it was criminal in every state." But for Roberts, recent developments in public opinion undo that entire history of discrimination-and render moot the motives of DOMA's authors.

Adam Serwer noted at Mother Jones that the attorney defending DOMA today, former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement

never mentioned procreation or potential harm to children. He stuck to a process-oriented defense.
The Defense of Marriage Act, Clement contended, only defined marriage as a hetero endeavor for the purpose of federal laws and, therefore, wasn't an imposition on the states, even though the law was enacted because legislators feared the states would legalize or recognize same-sex marriage. With DOMA, the federal government was merely seeking "uniformity," Clement insisted, ensuring that mentions of "marriage" in federal law only applied to unions between men and women. That desire for clarity, he maintained, was enough to justify the law.
Searching for a precedent to justify a federal role in defining marriage, Clement invoked the US government recognition of the marriages of freed slaves during Reconstruction. "In the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union," Clement said. He seemed to be unaware of the irony of citing a federal decision to extend marriage rights to one group in order to justify denying such rights to another group.

Regarding the politics of DOMA, Greg Sargent noticed that some Congressional Republicans are reluctant to talk about taking this case to the Supreme Court.

Not Representative Steve King of Iowa's fourth Congressional district. On March 26, his office released this web video and a press release highlighting this statement by King:

"The Constitution never contemplated marriage being anything other than between a man and a woman," said King. "And for the United States Supreme Court to come to an opposite conclusion would mean, I think, a real distortion of the Constitution, which is a contractual guarantee between each of the generations."

Steven Mazie considers how the case against same-sex marriage has evolved in recent years.

One person who hasn't evolved is Bob Vander Plaats, one of Iowa's most-obsessed opponents of marriage equality. He was in Washington this week for a marriage rally. Radio Iowa's Dar Danielson reported,

Ladies and Gentlemen, America needs leadership today," Vander Plaats said. "Quite frankly we are here at this moment because too many leaders, too many moms and dads, too many teachers, too many pastors and churches, too many politicians and elected office holders, backed away from the microphone when it was their turn to speak." [...]
"Now we all know that it is the norm for politicians to toss about from poll to poll and from wave to wave and put their finger in the wind," Vander Plaats says.
"But what we want the Supreme Court to do is look to our founders, look to the wisdom of Bill Graham, look to the wisdom of Pope Francis, not to the perpetual posturing of politicians and define marriage once and for all as a union between a man and a woman." Vander Plaats told the crowd the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the state law banning gay marriage created a "credibility chasm" between the people of the state and the court that continues today.
He said the U.S. Supreme court risks creating the same problem. "Usurping the people's voice and vote will send a constitutional shiver down America's freedom spine. And it will be the height of judicial overreach, where all of us will know that all of our freedoms - no matter which one you hold very dear - is now up for grabs to an unelected court," Vander Plaats says.

I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution didn't want the Pope or preachers like Billy Graham to determine our government's policy. And when the Republican-controlled Congress brought DOMA up for a vote during the 1996 presidential election year, that was the ultimate act of political posturing. So many Democrats otherwise considered liberal felt pressure to support that law, which passed both the House and the Senate by large majorities. All five Iowans in the U.S. House at the time voted yes: Republicans Jim Nussle (IA-01), Jim Leach (IA-02), Jim Ross Lightfoot (IA-03), Greg Ganske (IA-04), and Tom Latham (IA-05). Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin also voted for the DOMA. Harkin was up for re-election in 1996, and Lightfoot was his challenger.

Earlier this year, Harkin and Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) all signed a friend of the court brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down section 3 of the DOMA.

Obama marriage evolution discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:37:44 GMT

In an interview with ABC News today, President Barack Obama confirmed that he thinks same-sex couples "should be able to get married."

UPDATE: Added more Iowa political reaction below.
Click here to watch the ABC News video. Obama explained that he has always supported equal rights for same-sex couples in the context of civil unions, but balked at backing full marriage rights because the word "marriage" evokes such strong feelings about cultural and religious traditions. He continued,

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

On one level, this interview reflected a cynical calculation: continuing to hedge on marriage equality had become more politically costly for Obama than supporting full marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples. The president was careful to say that despite his personal opinion, he supports states' right to decide which marriages to recognize. In other words, he won't be a crusader for the right to marry everywhere in the country.

But on another level, it is momentous for the first African-American president become the first president and first major-party presidential candidate to openly support marriage equality. Also, the timing of today's interview was powerful. Yesterday North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning not just marriage but any legal recognition for same-sex couples. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008 and will make a serious play to hold that state, which is why the Democratic National Convention will be held there. He could have sat tight with his 2008 stand against discrimination but not completely for equality, but he didn't. Sure, national polling indicates steadily growing support for marriage rights, but not necessarily in all the swing states Obama needs to win this November.

I'll update this post as more political figures react to the president's comments. I got a laugh out of Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky's response. Never a fan of pressuring the president from the left, Dvorsky declined last week to join a group of state party chairs who want marriage equality in the national Democratic Party's platform. But less than a half-hour after ABC aired Obama's comments, Dvorsky was quick to pat the president on the back:

"Same-sex couples should be able to get married."-President Obama // Right you are, sir!

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- Three years after same-sex couples gained the right to marry in Iowa, Public Policy Polling's latest survey of Iowa voters found 76 of respondents said "legalized gay marriage has either had a positive impact or no impact on their lives."

UPDATE: Statement released by Dvorsky:

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky released the following statement following President Obama's remarks today (5/9/12) in support of marriage equality.
"Today, President Obama echoed the sentiments of countless Iowans who believe all loving couples should be able to honor their commitments through marriage. In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying is unconstitutional. It was a historic day for our state and a tremendous moment for committed couples as well as for the families and friends of Iowa's LGBT community.
"While this is arguably one of the most important and historic statements President Obama has made publicly on LGBT issues, his remarks follow a series of policies this administration has put forth in support of equal rights for LGBT Americans. The values that the President cares most deeply about are how we treat other people. President Obama recognizes that people are going to have differing views on marriage and those views, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected.
"As we applaud the position taken by President Obama today, we must also acknowledge the fight for full equality for LGBT Americans is far from over. Our opposition continues to push a divisive and well-funded tactical agenda which seeks to undermine equality efforts across the country.
"The likely Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, not only opposes same sex marriage, but he believes we should amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying. A Federal marriage amendment, such as the one Romney supports, would be the first time this country amended the Constitution to deny Americans equal rights. Additionally, his opposition to civil union could potentially rollback a whole range of equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian Americans."

Statement released by Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker:

DES MOINES, Iowa- The Republican Party of Iowa released the following statement from Chairman A.J. Spiker in response to President Obama's gay marriage decision:
"Marriage is an institution that can only be between one man and one woman. While President Obama continues to play politics, the Republican Party of Iowa will continue to support maintaining the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman."
RNC Platform: Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.

SECOND UPDATE: Within 90 minutes of ABC's broadcast today, the Obama campaign pulled in $1 million in donations.

The Obama campaign and Democratic Representative Bruce Braley's re-election campaign both seized on a good list-building opportunity today. Excerpt from the Obama campaign's e-mail blast:

[desmoinesdem] --
Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:
http://my.barackobama.com/Marr...
I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.
But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.
What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.
Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.
So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.
If you agree, you can stand up with me here.
Thank you,
Barack

Here's an e-mail blast Bruce Braley's Congressional campaign sent out the evening of May 9. It links to a page collecting signatures for a "thank you" note to the president.

[desmoinesdem] --
It's a historic day for civil rights in America.
In an interview this afternoon, President Obama publicly endorsed marriage equality, saying "same-sex couples should be able to get married."
President Obama has learned what we already know here in Iowa: that loving, committed couples from all backgrounds deserve to have the same rights under the law. The right to adopt children. The right to be free from discrimination. The right to pursue happiness. And the right to marry the person you love.
Let's show President Obama that we appreciate his strong stand for equal rights.
Tell President Obama: thank you for supporting marriage equality.
I'll take your thank you notes and deliver them to the White House.
Today's news is a step forward - but we still have a long way to go. My hope is that President Obama's change of heart helps convince more people that true equality under the law means ending marriage discrimination. After all, freedom means freedom for everybody.
Thank President Obama for supporting marriage equality.
Sincerely,
Bruce Braley

THIRD UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin told reporters the president did "the right thing, the courageous thing."

Harkin says his personal views on gay marriage have changed during his time in Washington. "My thinking on this has evolved over the years, too," Harkin says. "All of us have (evolved), as we get a better concept of civil rights and expanding equality under the Constitution of the United States, all of us, many of us, our thoughts have evolved, mine along with it."
Iowa is among six states and the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage. Harkin says he's done a one-80 on this subject in the past 15 years. "I'm a co-sponsor of the bill which is the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which, in all frankness, I will say that I voted for back in the '90s. I think now we recognize, at least I recognize, that this is not correct."
DOMA, enacted in 1996, is a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Harkin says voters in North Carolina and elsewhere likely haven't heard the last of this issue. "If you'd left it up to North Carolina and South Carolina and Alabama and Mississippi back in the '60s, they would've amended their constitutions to deny civil rights to African-Americans," Harkin says.

One of Iowa's leading opponents of same-sex marriage, Bob Vander Plaats, had a very different take:

Vander Plaats predicted Obama will pay a heavy price in the 2012 election where he will be opposed by Republican Mitt Romney.
"I believe the base that was inspired to make Obama a one-term president will only be more inspired. And if I'm Mitt Romney today, I am smiling bigger than life. I believe it will make Obama a one-term president," he said.
Vander Plaats said it will be important for Romney to properly message his stance on marriage.
"He can't waffle on it. He is going to show leadership, 'That you can trust me, that I will be for one-man, one-woman marriage.' He has campaigned that way. He has signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge, which includes a federal marriage amendment for one-man, one-woman," he said.

Judge orders state agency to list same-sex spouse on child's birth certificate

desmoinesdem — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:58:45 GMT

A Polk County District Court Judge has ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to list a birth mother's same-sex spouse on the child's birth certificate without requiring the non-birthing mother to go through the adoption process.

However, the ruling does not automatically apply to all Iowa same-sex couples seeking to have both parents listed on their children's birth certificates.
Melissa and Heather Gartner filed the lawsuit in 2010, after the Iowa Department of Public Health declined to list Melissa on the birth certificate of a child born to Heather in 2009. The Gartners had been legally married earlier that year, but the IDPH determined that Melissa would have to go through the adoption process to be named on the birth certificate of the couple's daughter. The Des Moines Register reported, "The case was dismissed in early 2011 on a technicality, and re-filed two weeks ago."

Iowa law has long stipulated that when a woman who gives birth is married, her husband should automatically be listed as the father on the child's birth certificate, regardless of the baby's genetic parentage.

The Des Moines Register posted the full text of Judge Eliza Ovrom's decision here (pdf). Judge Ovrom laid out the basic facts of the case on page 2:

Heather and Melissa are a lesbian couple who have been in a committed relationship since 2003. They held a commitment ceremony in front of family and friends in 2006. Heather gave birth to a son, Zachary, in 2007. She conceived via an anonymous sperm donor. Melissa adopted Zachary. Following the adoption, the Department of Public Health issued an amended birth certificate for Zachary, listing Heather as the mother, and Melissa as the other parent. Ex. 3.
Heather and Melissa decided together to have another child. Heather conceived again using anonymous sperm donor. She used the same donor as for Zachary.
In April 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision in Varnum v. Brien, which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. On June 13, 2009, Heather and Melissa were legally married.
On September 19, 2009, Heather gave birth to a daughter, Mackenzie, in Des Moines. Heather and Melissa filled out the form to obtain a birth certificate from the Iowa Department of Public Health. They listed themselves as parents, indicating that they are a same-sex couple legally married in Iowa. The Department of Public Health completed the birth certificate listing only Heather as the mother, and leaving blank the space for a second parent. The Department informed Melissa that it would not place her name on the birth certificate unless she first adopts the child. [...]
The parties agree that a birth certificate is the primary way to demonstrate legal parentage. They also agree that it is relied upon and legally required to establish identity, age, and parentage in many contexts, including school, employment, travel, social security, marriage licenses, driver's licenses, professional licenses, insurance, banking, and medical care. Without her name on the birth certificate, Melissa will be unable to prove that she is Mackenzie's legal parent. This will adversely affect her ability to authorize medical care for the child, or even to enroll her or pick her up from a childcare facility. Melissa will not be able to obtain access to the child's birth certificate, and would likely be denied health care coverage for the child on her policy. The Department does not dispute Melissa's claim that the process of adoption is intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming. It would involve a home study and background check, plus the expenses of court fees, attorney fees, and the costs of the home study.

Judge Ovrom explained on pages 4 to 6 why the Iowa Department of Public Health's interpretation of Iowa Code "is not entitled to deference" and should be examined by the court.

The IDPH relies on Section 144.13(2) of the Iowa Code:

If the mother was married at the time of conception, birth, or at any time during the period between conception and birth, the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child unless paternity has been determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction, in which case the name of the father as determined by the court shall be entered by the department.

Ovrom's ruling then summarizes the key arguments for both sides on page 6:

Petitioners assert that following Varnum, the Department should read the statute to refer to "spouse" instead of "husband," and "parent" instead of "father." The Department argues that because Section 144.13(2) says a "husband's" name must be placed on a birth certificate as the "father" of the child, it cannot enter Melissa's name on the birth certificate under that statute, and she must adopt the child in order to have her name placed on the birth certificate.

Ovrom then cites a passage from the Iowa Supreme Court's 2009 Varnum v Brien decision: "Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

The decision cites Iowa case law supporting the idea that all children born to married parents are considered the legitimate children of both parents. In a 1945 case, the Iowa Attorney General's Office determined "that a husband's name must be placed on a birth certificate even though he could not possibly have fathered his wife's child" (because he was away at war).

In a 1999 ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court "held that when a child is born during a marriage, the husband is the legally established father of a child, even though genetic testing shows that another man is the child's biological father."

Judge Ovrom concluded that the Gartners proved the IDPH actions "are in violation of law, and based on an erroneous interpretation of the law." She did not issue a decision on whether the IDPH's interpretation of Iowa Code violated the Gartners' constitutional rights, which was another legal argument in the case.

Commenting on yesterday's news, One Iowa Executive Director Troy Price released the following statement:

"One Iowa applauds this long-overdue ruling. Iowa has finally caught up with other states that already protect children by listing both spouses as parents on the birth certificate. The court has once again upheld Iowa values by making this decision that is in the best interest of Iowa's children and ensures that both parents will be able to care for their children during critical times in their lives. This is one more step towards full equality for all Iowa families."

I would caution that this ruling does not automatically apply to all same-sex couples who have children while legally married in Iowa.

From page 11 of Ovrom's decision:

An important fact of this case is that the child was conceived by use of in vitro fertilization with an anonymous sperm donor. The Department's stated goal of naming the biological father of the child cannot be met, as there is no identified man who could be named as the father. Paternity cannot be established here. In addition, the Department argues that biological fathers could challenge its decision to omit them from birth certificates, thus leading to administrative inefficiencies. Again, this cannot happen in this case, where the sperm is from an anonymous donor. The court's holding is limited to the facts of this case.
Conclusion
Pursuant to Varnum v. Brien, where a married woman gives birth to a baby conceived through use of an anonymous sperm donor, the Department of Public Health should place her same-sex spouse's name on the child's birth certificate without requiring the spouse to go through an adoption proceeding.

Perhaps the IDPH will automatically list all same-sex spouses on birth certificates going forward. However, if the IDPH decides to do so only when the child was conceived through use of an anonymous sperm donor, other couples who have children through different means may have to fight this battle in court.

UPDATE: I sought comment about how the IDPH plans to implement this ruling. The department's Public Information Officer Polly Carver-Kimm responded, "it appears the ruling applies only in those cases in which a lesbian married couple conceives via in vitro fertilization using an anonymous sperm donor; however, IDPH is reviewing the ruling to ensure it is interpreted and applied correctly."

Iowa Senate district 18 election day news and discussion thread (updated)

desmoinesdem — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:58:25 GMT

Today's forecast calls for rain and cold temperatures in Linn County as Iowa Senate district 18 voters determine whether the Senate will remain Democratic-controlled for the 2012 session or deadlocked at 25-25. The weather doesn't seem bad enough to be a significant factor, but if it does keep some voters home, that's probably good news for Democrat Liz Mathis. She continues to lead Republican Cindy Golding in early voting.

The latest absentee ballot numbers and other news clips from the special election campaign are after the jump.

UPDATE: New absentee numbers for Senate district 18 are below.
UPDATE: Shortly after 4 pm on November 8, the Linn County Auditor's Elections office released new absentee ballot numbers for Senate district 18 voters only:

8,677 ballots issued to residents of Senate district 18:

4,283 (49.3 percent) went to registered Democrats
2,185 (25.2 percent) went to Republicans
2,200 (25.4 percent) went to no-party voters
Nine went to to voters with some other registration.

Meanwhile, 7,607 absentee ballots had been returned from Senate district 18 residents as of 4 pm on November 8:

3,808 (50.1 percent) came from registered Democrats
1,998 (26.3 percent) came from Republicans
1,796 (23.6 percent) came from no-party voters
Five came from voters with some other party registration.

At the close of business on November 7, the Linn County Auditor had issued 10,250 absentee ballots county-wide. Roughly 90 percent of the ballot requests have come from residents of Senate district 18. The rest are from voters planning to participate in other local elections taking place today.

Of the 10,250 ballots issued:

5,016 (48.9 percent) went to registered Democrats
2,727 (26.6 percent) went to Republicans
2,495 (24.3 percent) went to no-party voters
Twelve went to to voters with some other registration.

At the close of business on November 7, the Linn County Auditor's office had received 8,609 absentee ballots for today's election. That number includes people who voted early in person at the auditor's office as well as those who filled out their absentee ballots at home. The returned ballots broke down as follows:

4,335 (50.4 percent) came from registered Democrats
2,343 (27.2 percent) came from Republicans
1,924 (22.4 percent) came from no-party voters
Seven came from voters with some other party registration.

Golding has a lot of ground to make up today, especially if the no-party absentee voters have leaned toward Mathis. Bleeding Heartland user albert analyzed Senate district 18 absentee voting trends last week and found, "The precinct-level view suggests that a successful effort is underway to galvanize younger independent voters to participate in this election."

I got a laugh out of Governor Terry Branstad's remark at yesterday's press conference that it will be an "uphill battle" for Golding. Citing the "short window" of the special election campaign, the governor said:

"I believe that the Republican candidate, Cindy Golding, has a great background and great business experience and is a hard worker, but also I think she has a considerable name recognition disadvantage," Branstad said. [...]
"When you look at special elections, they are not much of an indicator ... they're an indicator of that particular district at that point in time," he said. "So I don't think people should read too much into it but obviously we'll see."

I have to believe Branstad would be speaking more confidently and would have spent more political capital on this race if his preferred candidate, Mary Rathje, had been the GOP nominee. Rathje came up short at the district nominating convention in September.

Family Research Council Action scheduled a "Values Voters Bus Tour" stop in Marion yesterday to GOTV for Golding. National Organization for Marriage Executive Director Chris Plante was on board, and Iowa Independent posted video from the event. Golding emphasized that her campaign is about many issues:

The media has made it [marriage] a single issue, not us. We want to talk about all of the things that the Senate stalled, the 83 percent of the issues that were bipartisan issues that the Senate refused, that Senator Gronstal refused to bring to the floor.
It is the [Cedar Rapids] Gazette and the media that has made this a single issue, and I want to encourage our voters, don't vote on a single issue. Vote on all those other values that are important to you, that makes Iowa as great as it has been, and as great as it can be in the future. It is not a single issue, it is one of several issues that bring us together to change this state.
We need to get everybody out to vote tomorrow. We have a chance to change this state, and it's not one issue, it's 83 percent of the bills that pass the [Iowa] House that we don't get to debate on the floor of the Senate.

Lynda Waddington's video from that rally is on YouTube here.

Meanwhile, the Citizens United Political Victory Fund PAC paid for robocalls targeting 35,000 voters in Iowa Senate district 18 yesterday. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee recorded the robocalls using this script:

Hi this is former Governor Mike Huckabee calling for Citizens United Political Victory Fund to urge you to vote for Republican Cindy Golding on Tuesday for State Senate to represent you and the other fine folks there in the 18th District. With Cindy Golding in Des Moines, Republicans will wrestle control away from the big spending Democrats and put us one step closer to getting our fiscal House in order and most importantly to start getting Iowans working again. With our economy struggling to get back on track, now more than ever America, and especially Iowa, needs a problem solver in government- not another celebrity! And there's only one real problem solver and job creator in the race to be your next state senator and that is Republican Cindy Golding- that's why I urge you to vote Cindy Golding...Republican for state senate.
Paid for by Citizens United Political Victory Fund. WWW.CUPVF.COM. And
not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Iowa law requires candidates to file campaign disclosure reports by the Friday before election day. Mathis reported more cash on hand and more in-kind contributions (pdf) going into the final weekend than Golding did (pdf).

The Cedar Rapids Gazette editorial board endorsed Mathis Sunday, citing her "stronger grasp of education issues" and capacity to "grow into the job, build relationships and become a strong advocate for her district." While the board praised Golding's "strong grasp of issues related to business growth," the majority of members felt concerned that

Golding's more strident stands will make it harder for her to reach across the aisle and forge the compromises that will be needed in a closely divided Legislature.
We're also troubled by Golding's call for holding a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in Iowa. This editorial page has stood strongly for the right of gay and lesbian Iowans to enjoy civil marriage rights. The fact that Golding would risk those constitutional rights in a divisive public vote to, as she said, take the "spotlight" off Iowa, gave us pause.

The marriage issue tipped the scales for Gazette columnist Todd Dorman, a Senate district 18 resident:

I was initially critical of Mathis' reluctance to say the ruling was a good thing. But a reader pointed out to me that of the 28 Linn County precincts that voted to toss out three Supreme Court Justices last fall, 22 are in District 18. Perhaps Mathis deserves more credit than I gave her for defending the ruling.
Golding deserves no credit for her stand. It would be wrong to put Iowans' hard-won civil rights to a vote simply to turn off a spotlight or change an uncomfortable subject. And it's groups supporting Golding, including the Family Leader and National Organization for Marriage, that keep that spotlight burning bright. She should tell them to turn it off.
And civil rights debates simply don't end once and for all.
Unlike taxes and education, which likely will be decided in negotiations far above Golding or Mathis' legislative pay grade, this is an issue of individual conscience. Does Iowa's Constitution protect all of us, or just some of us? Is equal protection a sacred contract or a popularity contest? Not important? I disagree. This is about more than a marriage license.
It's the sort of issue that Mary Lundby wouldn't shy away from when she represented this district. And Golding's stand does not pass the Mary Lundby test.

Lundby represented Iowa Senate district 18 until her retirement in 2008. She was one of four Iowa Senate Republicans who voted against a constitutional amendment on marriage in 2004. At the time, Republicans held a 29-21 Senate majority, but the four no votes meant the amendment failed to pass, 25-25. If Lundby and the others had not stood their ground, Iowa voters would likely have approved a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman years ago. The Varnum v Brien case would never have been filed, and the Iowa Supreme Court would never have struck down the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

Any comments about Iowa Senate district 18 or local elections anywhere in Iowa are welcome in this thread.

Four candidates are competing for two seats on the Windsor Heights City Council. All of them have plentiful yard signs and have been canvassing, making phone calls or both. I'm voting for incumbent Steve Peterson and challenger Kerry Bowen.

UPDATE: Local media are reporting on ugly robocalls made yesterday, purporting to be from marriage supporters and asking which "homosexual acts" Mathis endorses. The Golding campaign distanced itself from the calls, while the National Organization for Marriage blasted "calls that were so offensive they clearly were designed to turn voters away from Cindy Golding because she supports marriage between one man and one woman." This story from KGAN (the CBS affiliate in Cedar Rapids) doesn't indicate which voters were targeted.

Lynda Waddington posted audio from several robocalls made in the Senate district 18 race--but not the one claiming to come from "Citizens for Honesty and Sound Marriage."

SECOND UPDATE: The LGBT advocacy group One Iowa released the following statement about the controversial robocalls:

Marion, IA-Voters in Senate District 18, the site of the special election to fill an empty Senate seat and whose outcome will determine control of the state Senate, have reported receiving disturbing and offensive robocalls. The National Organization for Marriage and The Family Leader claim that these calls were targeting anti-equality advocates are a "dirty trick" designed to affect the election.
"These types of dirty tricks have no place in Iowa, and it is disturbing and unfortunate that NOM and the Family Leader would claim that proponents of marriage are behind these calls," said Troy Price, One Iowa Executive Director. "By sending mailers into the district focused on marriage and bringing their bus to Marion, they are the ones who have injected marriage into this race, and no one else. If they really want to get to the bottom of this, they should look no further than their own back yard."

Liz Mathis still has early vote edge in Iowa Senate district 18 (updated)

desmoinesdem — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:57:01 GMT

UPDATE: More recent absentee ballot numbers are here, and a precinct-level analysis of the early voting is here.

Absentee ballot requests and returns continue to favor Democrat Liz Mathis over Cindy Golding, her Republican opponent in the Iowa Senate district 18 special election.

The latest numbers from the Linn County Auditor's Elections office are after the jump, along with recent comments about marriage equality by the Senate district 18 candidates.
At close of business on October 31, the Linn County Auditor had received 9,147 absentee ballot requests for the November 8 election. According to the Elections Office, 89.6 percent of those ballot requests came from voters residing in Senate district 18. The other 10 percent were from people planning to vote in local elections elsewhere in the county.

Of the 9,147 ballots issued so far:

4,555 (49.8 percent) went to registered Democrats
2,332 (25.5 percent) went to Republicans
2,249 (24.6 percent) went to no-party voters
Eleven went to to voters with some other registration.

At the close of business on October 31, the Linn County Auditor's office had received 5,388 absentee ballots for the November 8 election. That number includes people who voted early in person at the auditor's office as well as those who filled out their absentee ballots at home. The returned ballots broke down as follows:

2,910 (54.1 percent) came from registered Democrats
1,366 (25.4 percent) came from Republicans
1,108 (20.6 percent) came from no-party voters
Four came from voters with some other party registration.

UPDATE: Here are the numbers released at the end of the business day on November 1. Of 9,362 absentee ballots issued so far:

4,631 (49.5 percent) went to registered Democrats
2,422 (25.9 percent) went to Republicans
2,298 (24.6 percent) went to no-party voters
Eleven went to to voters with some other registration.

Of 6,044 absentee ballots that the Linn County Auditor's Office had received from voters at the end of the day on November 1:

3,187 (52.8 percent) came from registered Democrats
1,602 (26.5 percent) came from Republicans
1,250 (20.7 percent) came from no-party voters
Five came from voters with some other party registration.

The proportion of absentee ballots from Democrats, Republicans and no-party voters has changed little since last Tuesday or the end of last week. We can't determine from these numbers whether the independents voting early are evenly split or are leaning toward Mathis or Golding. That said, it's a safe bet that Mathis has banked more votes than Golding with a week to go.

Both political parties and several outside interest groups have been working on GOTV in Senate district 18. Mathis has to hope her absentee ballot lead reflects greater voter enthusiasm on the Democratic side. Golding has to hope the discrepancy comes from Republicans' tendency to vote on election day, not by absentee ballot. A strong conservative turnout on November 8 could put Golding over the top, so Democrats are in no position to celebrate victory yet. But of course it's always better to go into election day leading by a thousand or more votes.

Several people have asked me how large turnout is likely to be for the Senate district 18 election. The short answer is that I have no idea, but I've been thinking about some possible educated guesses. Here are the turnout numbers for the most competitive 2010 Iowa Senate races (pdf):

Senate district 1: 15,329 votes cast

Senate district 5: 23,572 votes cast

Senate district 13: 20,569 votes cast

Senate district 37: 29,139 votes cast

Senate district 45: 23,733 votes cast

Senate district 47: 19,751 votes cast

Note: the Senate district 37 race between Democratic incumbent Staci Appel and Republican State Representative Kent Sorenson had significantly higher turnout than the other closely-fought Senate races last year. In part, that reflects rapid population growth in Warren County during the past decade. The Appel/Sorenson race also resembled the Senate district 18 campaign in that it was "ground zero" for the battle over marriage equality in Iowa. Appel's husband was one of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage. Sorenson was one of the legislature's most outspoken critics of same-sex marriage rights and sought to bring back elections for the state Supreme Court. Republicans, Democrats and outside groups spent large amounts of money advertising and organizing in the district, just as they are now doing in Senate district 18.

One could argue that there's no way turnout will be as high for this year's special election as it was for a general election when the governor and members of Congress were on the ballot. The last highly competitive special election for the Iowa legislature was the 2009 race in House district 90. Voters cast 8,092 ballots in that race, which also involved heavy advertising and GOTV on both sides. An Iowa House district is half the size of a Senate district, so if turnout in Senate district 18 is comparable to what we saw in House district 90, we could be looking at around 16,000 votes cast.

On the other hand, there's much more at stake now, because the November 8 result will determine whether Democrats retain a 26-24 Iowa Senate majority or have to share power in a chamber deadlocked 25-25. The 2009 race in House district 90 was high-profile because it came only a few months after the Iowa Supreme Court's landmark ruling on marriage, and Republicans were hoping a win would give them momentum going into the next election cycle. But even if Curt Hanson hadn't carried House district 90, Democrats would have maintained an Iowa House majority for the 2010 session.

Looking at the 2008 election results for all Iowa Senate races, I noticed that Senate district 18 had the second-highest number of votes cast. (Democrat Swati Dandekar defeated Republican Joe Childers in that open-seat race.) Strong population growth in the Cedar Rapids suburbs put more voters in Senate district 18 than in most other Iowa Senate districts. The summer 2008 floods were relevant too, because they displaced an unknown number of residents from downtown Cedar Rapids to suburban neighborhoods. It's also possible that demographic factors such as relatively high income and education levels in Senate district 18 are linked to above-average voter turnout there.

Another way of approaching this question is to look at the proportion of Iowans who prefer to vote early. According to the Iowa Secretary of State's office (pdf), 587,561 women and 537,824 men cast ballots in the 2010 general election. Of those, 201,638 women and 158,829 men voted with absentee ballots (that includes people who voted early in person at satellite stations). In other words, about a third of the electorate cast early ballots. I don't know whether a similar proportion of Senate district 18 residents voted early.

My hunch is that absentee ballots will make up more than a third of the total votes cast in Senate district 18, because local elections are the only other game in town on November 8. Typically turnout is much lower for city races than for statewide and Congressional elections.

The Linn County Auditor's office has sent out 9,147 ballots, 90 percent of them (roughly 8,200) to voters living in Senate district 18. Does that represent half or more of the total votes that will be cast for Golding and Mathis? Your guess is as good as mine.

I will say confidently that if Mathis wins, she can be grateful for high name recognition and superior organizing on the Democratic side. Her campaign rhetoric isn't going to inspire anyone. Yesterday both candidates met with the Cedar Rapids Gazette editorial board. Look how Mathis answered the questions about same-sex marriage in Iowa:

Q - Do you believe that Iowa voters should determine whether or not the state constitution should declare that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
Mathis - "I think we've both answered that, three, four, five, six times or something. And a couple of times by your two reporters. So, I'll say it again. Iowa should not discriminate. I don't believe in discrimination. I believe in the Iowa State Supreme Court, their unanimous ruling, appellate ruling on gay marriage. Varnum v. Brien is constitutionally sound. And I'll just leave it at that." [...]
Q - How has the ruling changed the state? (To Mathis)
Mathis - "I think it's changed the state because we're back to one-issue voting. I think there are people who are going to vote on that and vote on that only. They're missing a chance to really be informed about a lot of other things that are very, very, very important to our economy. You know, we need to look at the economics of our state and, um, that's what I see most. That people are putting blinders on just one issue."
Q - So no positive change?
"A positive change in a way that people are becoming politically active, if that's the type of politics I think that you prefer. There are people who are looking more clearly at the process and understanding and being more involved. If that's an upside. I'm not sure if you're looking at this issue in particular."

So, Mathis thinks the court's ruling was "constitutionally sound," and she's against discrimination. But asked how the Varnum v Brien decision changed the state, the first thing that popped into her head was a negative: a lot of people became single-issue voters. Pressed to name a positive impact, she said the ruling made people more politically active and involved "if that's an upside."

Way to make all those One Iowa donors and volunteers feel great about helping your campaign, Ms. Mathis.

Helpful hint: Iowa has an estimated 4,000 same-sex households. About a third of those include married couples, who now enjoy the same civil rights as married heterosexuals. And whether they are partnered or not, thousands of LGBT Iowans know that they are not second-class citizens in this state.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and then House Speaker Pat Murphy didn't hesitate to welcome the positive impact of Varnum v Brien on April 3, 2009:

"Thanks to today's decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens' equal rights.
"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.
"Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan. [...]
"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.
"Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws."

It shouldn't be hard for Mathis to think of a positive way marriage equality has changed Iowa.

Not that Golding's answer to the same questions will please conservatives trying to paint her as the savior of "traditional marriage" in Iowa. She told the Gazette's editorial board,

Golding - "And I have said very clearly that I believe that the citizens of Iowa should vote on this issue. We are in the spotlight and continue to be in the spotlight on an issue that we chose not to be there. The Legislature voted on a bill that was by representative government. I understand the bill was poorly written. It was then voted on by the judges to determine the constitutionality of that bill. And now we need to go to the people, which is the final step. And I believe that once we vote on it, whether we vote it up or down, the spotlight can come off Iowa for that issue and we can focus on business, we can focus on jobs, focus on education. We can focus on the things we really need to be taking our time and energy. Because nobody in our district, it was not a huge issue to either one of us as we were going around. It became an issue to us by the national media."
Q - How do think the ruling has changed Iowa?
Golding - "I don't know how the ruling has dramatically changed, but I can see changes in the schools. I am a volunteer in the high schools. And in my daughter's high school, they have a scholarship for a gay student. And I am curious what the sexual orientation of a student should be for a scholarship in high school. That troubles me."
Q - Is that the only criteria for the scholarship?
"Well there's academics, but you must be a declared GLBT student in order to apply for it. That troubles me."
Q - So if the impact hasn't been dramatic, I guess, how do you think the state's made better by having a referendum? It's obviously going to be pretty contentious, pretty divisive. How is Iowa made better through that process?
Golding - "I think across the nation where the voting has come up, in those states it is contentious until the vote is done. And then regardless of whether the state voted up or voted down, the spotlight came off them. We need to take the focus off Iowa."

Yet again, Golding downplays the issue and says people should be able to vote on marriage without claiming that same-sex marriage has harmed Iowa in any material way. She may score points with conservatives by implying that an LGBT agenda influences public schools, but she's wrong about the Matthew Shepard scholarships. Those predate the Varnum v Brien ruling.

Any comments about the Senate district 18 race are welcome in this thread.

P.S. Bonus points for ignorance go to Jon Tack, the Constitution Party candidate in Senate district 18. At last week's League of Women Voters forum, he said this about same-sex marriage rights:

"With the issue of gay marriage or same-sex marriage, marriage is actually a religious ceremony," Tack said. "It is not part of a government function and, as such, it therefore violates the First Amendment upon which the government shall not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
"The decision handed down by the Iowa Supreme Court should be nullified because the government has no business dealing with religion and telling them how to operate, who to accept in terms of marriage in Christianity, which is what we are in Iowa - primarily in Iowa; mostly [this is] a Christian nation. Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Guess again, Mr. Tack. Excerpt from pages 66 and 67 of the Varnum decision (pdf):

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage--religious or otherwise--by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person's religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.

New poll finds net negative approval for Branstad

desmoinesdem — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:50:34 GMT

More Iowa voters disapprove than approve of Terry Branstad's performance as governor, according to the latest statewide survey by Public Policy Polling. Of 1,109 Iowa voters polled between April 15 and April 17, just 41 percent approved of Branstad's performance, while 45 percent disapproved and 14 percent were not sure. In a hypothetical rematch between Branstad and Governor Chet Culver, 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for Culver, while 46 percent would vote for Branstad. Full results and crosstabs are here (pdf). Branstad was in net positive territory with men (45 percent approve/43 percent disapprove), but women disapproved by a 48-37 margin. The sample doesn't perfectly match the Iowa electorate; I noticed that 38 percent of respondents said they were Democrats, 33 percent said they were Republicans and 29 percent said they were independents. As of April 2011, Iowa has 1,955,217 active voters, of whom 647,060 are registered Democrats (33 percent), 610,006 are registered Republicans (31 percent), and 696,061 are no-party voters (36 percent).

PPP's last Iowa poll, taken in January, found only 40 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Branstad, while 44 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

The new survey suggests a plurality of Iowa voters accept marriage equality. Asked "which best describes your opinion on gay marriage," 35 percent of respondents said "gay couples should be allowed to legally marry," 29 percent said "gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry," 33 percent said "there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship," and 2 percent were unsure. PPP's January survey of Iowa voters asked the question differently and found 41 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, 52 percent said it should not be legal, and 8 percent were unsure.

PPP also recorded job approval numbers for Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and favorable/unfavorable numbers for Iowa's five U.S. House representatives, Christie Vilsack and Tom Vilsack. Grassley and Harkin were both in net positive territory, but Grassley's ratings (57/30) were much stronger than Harkin's (47/38). It's hard to read anything into the favorability ratings of the House members, since the opinion of voters statewide won't necessarily reflect representatives' standing in their own districts.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that to my knowledge, Chet Culver's approval ratings didn't fall to the low 40s until the second half of 2009, when he was dealing with a recession, state budget crunch and the film tax credit fiasco.

Impeachment going nowhere and other Iowa Supreme Court news

desmoinesdem — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:05:23 GMT

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

After the jump I examine the articles of impeachment, future prospects for their backers and recent news related to the 2012 judicial retention elections.
Five legislators filed the articles of impeachment. Three are serving their first terms in the House: Kim Pearson (district 42), Tom Shaw (district 8) and Glen Massie (district 74). In December they became the first elected officials to call for impeaching the Supreme Court justices who weren't rejected in the November retention elections. Two experienced House Republicans joined in filing the articles of impeachment: Betty De Boef (district 76) and Dwayne Alons (district 4). To some extent they are outsiders in their own caucus, among very few veteran legislators passed over for committee chairmanships when Republicans took back the Iowa House majority.

When the subject of impeachment first came up, prominent Iowa Republicans were slow to dismiss the idea. House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said he was "open" to impeachment if "the people" demanded it, and House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer said "she wanted to get a better understanding of the legal definition of what constitutes 'malfeasance' and discuss the issue with her 60-member Republican caucus before deciding how to proceed."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was itching for a fight on this issue, judging from a written statement he released last Thursday:

"Either publicly condemn your own Republican members as well as members of the Republican Party for offering this outrageous, extremist proposal or allow a full and open impeachment proceeding for all Iowans to consider knowing House Democrats will use every available procedural tool to shut down the Iowa House and defeat this right-wing effort.
"I suspect, however that the House Republican Leadership will do neither and instead remain cowardly silent. If that is true, then let it be clear to all Republicans where the House Republican leadership truly stands on this issue."

House leaders weren't about to give McCarthy the opening he wanted. Soon after news of the bill filings broke on Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson told the Des Moines Register,

The justices' actions in issuing a ruling that in effect legalized same-sex marriage do not meet the standard for impeachment spelled out in the Iowa Constitution: misdemeanor or malfeasance in office, Anderson said.
Anderson said believes the majority of House Republicans agree with him and that it's unlikely that the resolutions will go anywhere.
Anderson is a lawyer who initially applied to fill one of the three seats left open after voters in November ousted three justices. He withdrew his name shortly after applying to continue to focus upon his elected responsibilities.
"Rendering an opinion or resolving a dispute, which is what judges and justices are charged with doing, that is not misconduct or wrongful or unlawful," Anderson said. "As much as the sponsors of the resolution disagree with the opinion, I don't think the legal standard is met."

Friday morning House Speaker Kraig Paulsen swatted down the impeachment effort:

"While I agree with much of the reasoning behind the impeachment resolutions, I disagree with this remedy," the Hiawatha Republican said in a statement. "I do not expect it to be debated on the floor of the House and, if it is, I will vote no. House Republicans remain focused on reducing government spending and lowering taxes for Iowa families and small businesses." [...]
Paulsen said Friday that the resolutions will not come before the full House this year because the late-arriving impeachment papers must first be considered by the House Judiciary Committee, which is not scheduled to convene again this session. Most standing committee work ended on April 1 when the second self-imposed legislative "funnel" deadline arrived.

Why supporters of impeachment waited so long to file these bills remains unclear. The Iowa House and Senate were scheduled to adjourn at the end of April, though budget disagreements will extend this year's session into May. Shaw told Kay Henderson on April 21 that the state representatives wanted to make sure they had the correct legislative language. But if they believe the Varnum ruling was so destructive that its author and concurring justices must be removed from office, why couldn't they get someone to help them with the wording in December or January? We're not talking about highly-developed legal discourse; these bills are only a few paragraphs long.

House Resolution 47 calls for impeaching Justice Brent Appel, House Resolution 48 calls for impeaching Chief Justice Mark Cady, House Resolution 49 calls for impeaching Justice Daryl Hecht, and House Resolution 50 calls for impeaching Justice David Wiggins. Each bill cites the same five reasons, and the language resembles rhetoric we've heard in many Republican speeches denouncing marriage equality:

1. Each justice "improperly assumed the function and role of an elected legislator by ordering that the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute as enacted by the legislative department and approved by the governor of the executive department in 1998."

2. Each justice "knowingly and intentionally usurped the proper function delegated solely and exclusively to the legislative department of declaring public policy, through his judicial declaration of a new public policy contrary to long-standing public policy acknowledged by society and established in Iowa Code section 595.2, subsection 1."

3. Each justice "improperly required the executive department to issue marriage licenses to parties of the same sex in direct contravention of Iowa Code section 595.2."

4. Each justice "created a constitutional crisis regarding the enforcement of the Varnum ruling by allowing different interpretations of the definition of marriage to exist indefinitely within the separate departments of government, leaving the people with no immediate remedy to address this crisis."

5. Each justice "created a constitutional imbalance and confusion within the State of Iowa as to the proper constitutional function of each department, thus undermining the integrity of the tripartite separation of powers among the departments and creating social disorder and unrest."

Points 1, 2 and 3 are laughable. Finding a law inconsistent with the constitution is nothing new for judges in Iowa or elsewhere. Nor is it improper for the executive branch to stop enforcing a law judges have struck down.

Point 4 is mystifying. An unpopular court ruling causes a "constitutional crisis" only in the imaginations of some conservative activists. At the time the Iowa Constitution was adopted, judicial review at the federal level had been well-established for decades. The state constitution lays out a process for amending the document. It says nothing about giving the public an "immediate remedy" for court rulings they dislike. A constitutional amendment to overturn same-sex marriage rights failed to advance in the Iowa House or Senate in 2009 and 2010. This year the amendment passed the Iowa House but stalled in the Iowa Senate. If citizens wanted quicker action on amending the constitution, they could have voted in November 2010 to convene a constitutional assembly this year. A ballot measure to that effect failed by a two to one margin.

Point 5 is my favorite. "Social disorder and unrest"--where and when? This Wednesday marks the second anniversary of the first same-sex marriages performed in Iowa after the Varnum v Brien ruling. The protests around the state on that day went peacefully and caused no major disruptions, even though same-sex marriage had been the top Iowa news story day after day in April 2009. Iowa's most vocal critic of the Varnum v Brien ruling, Bob Vander Plaats, has been touring the state this year to help his FAMiLY Leader organization "capture and build on the momentum created by pro-family victories last November." According to every news account I've read about these events, few people have turned up to hear Vander Plaats.

The articles of impeachment won't advance far enough to affect the named Supreme Court justices, but I've been wondering whether the bills' five sponsors will face any political consequences from Republican leaders who would have rather not raised this subject.

Alons represents the safest Iowa House district for the GOP. District 4 makes up most of Sioux County, where Republicans routinely win more than 80 percent of the vote. It contains nearly three times as many registered Republicans as Democrats and no-party voters combined. I don't see what unhappy party leaders can do to Alons. As I mentioned above, he doesn't hold a committee chairmanship leaders could take away. He isn't the brightest bulb, but he does have the guts to back hopeless causes. For example, he nominated Bob Vander Plaats for lieutenant governor at last summer's state GOP convention. Earlier this session, Alons proposed other legislation backed by only a small minority in his own caucus: he sought to reduce Iowa Supreme Court justices' pay and change the state's judicial selection process.

If De Boef wants to continue her legislative career, she will be more vulnerable than Alons. Redistricting threw De Boef in with a fellow House Republican. She won't run against Jarad Klein in a primary but hasn't said whether she will retire from the legislature or run in a different district. Nearby House district 80 is empty and is one of the most evenly-divided districts created by the new map: 6,593 registered Democrats, 6,496 registered Republicans and 6,577 no-party voters. De Boef isn't a powerhouse fundraiser, so if she wants to win in a competitive district, she will probably need help from the House Republican majority fund. Last fall, Paulsen and Upmeyer invested more heavily in some competitive districts than others; for example, they left the GOP candidate in winnable House district 7 hanging.

Shaw may find his political career cut short. Redistricting threw him and House Transportation Committee Chairman David Tjepkes in the same Republican-leaning House district 10. There are no empty districts nearby. I haven't seen Shaw declare his intentions, but I find it hard to see him winning a primary against a more entrenched incumbent. House leaders are sure to back Tjepkes over Shaw if there is a primary. Shaw caused problems for them earlier in the session, when he, Massie and Pearson refused to back and repeatedly criticized a bill to ban most abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Redistricting gave Pearson more friendly territory than the Democratic-leaning district in which she shocked Geri Huser in 2010. However, the new district 30 is a swing district with 6,629 registered Democrats, 6,523 registered Republicans and 5,756 no-party voters. Pearson isn't reluctant to criticize party leaders; she had some strong words in her speech to a recent tea party rally in Des Moines. Since she didn't get much assistance from the GOP establishment in 2010, she may be confident she can be elected next year without Paulsen's help.

Massie may be in the most precarious position. One of the Supreme Court justices he wants to impeach, Brent Appel, lives in his House district. Redistricting also made the new district 26 a bit more Democratic than Massie's current district, although it's still relatively balanced at 6,927 registered Democrats, 6,417 registered Republicans and 6,755 no-party voters. Massie's Democratic opponent in 2010, Scott Ourth, is considering another run for the House in 2012. Craig Robinson reported recently at The Iowa Republican blog, "Without help from the Kent Sorenson and others on the ticket, Massie is going to struggle. TIR has also heard that Massie is telling people that he may not seek re-election." If Massie is already fed up with serving in the House, why not file a hopeless impeachment motion a week before the scheduled end of the session?

Perhaps the impeachment bills will be almost forgotten by the time of the 2012 primaries and general election. Even so, at least one Iowa Supreme Court justice will be in a battle to save his career. David Wiggins is up for retention in 2012, along with the three new Supreme Court justices Governor Terry Branstad appointed this year. Branstad commented on the retention vote when taping Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program on April 14:

Branstad: There is one [Supreme Court justice] that comes up next time, and I suspect there will be a lot of people, especially in light of the fact that he chaired the judicial nominating commission and the way he treated some of the applicants to that - and that was all on videotape. I suspect there's going to be some people that have grave concerns about the way he has operated. So I do expect that Wiggins will face some challenge in that. I don't know. It's going to depend -
Henderson: Justice David Wiggins, for viewers who may not know.
Branstad: Yes, Justice David Wiggins. And I think a lot of people were concerned. I've even heard this from some of the judges that were up before him about the lack of temperament in the way he interviewed the candidates and the way they were treated and whether they were all treated in the same even-handed and equitable way. But that's an issue, I guess, that will come up when that comes up. But I guess my feeling is that we need to do all we can to restore respect for the judicial system. I think it's become too partisan, and I think we need to restore balance.

Former Governor Tom Vilsack appointed Wiggins and was asked about Branstad's comments during his own "Iowa Press" appearance on April 21:

Vilsack: Well, I was actually surprised the Governor weighed in on that. I think it's very important that we keep separate the executive branch and the judicial branch. I know Justice Wiggins, he is a very, very sharp legal mind. I think what he did during the course of interviews was to probe, which I think you need to do. Certainly when I questioned potential candidates for office and for judgeships when I was governor we had probing questions that you needed to ask to get a sense of the candidates. And I think the reality is that Justice Wiggins isn't the only justice on the ballot and I'm not sure that folks are actually going to be able to distinguish between those that were appointed by the Vilsack or Culver administration or those that were appointed by the Branstad administration. And I think it's better for the state if we separate the two branches.
[Kay] Henderson: For the benefit of viewers, the three justices who were just sworn in to serve who were appointed by Governor Branstad will be on the ballot in 2012.
Vilsack: That's correct and so it's conceivable that it's not just Justice Wiggins that faces an issue, it's all of those justices. And I think, again, I think we need to get back to a place where the judiciary and the executive branch are separate.

There's no question Wiggins will face a tough election next year, and not just because of the alleged "judicial activism" that was central to last year's campaign against retaining Supreme Court Justices Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker. Branstad is correct that Wiggins will deal with additional scrutiny for his role in selecting finalists for the three vacancies on the high court. I think the State Judicial Nominating Commission did mishandle the process by sending the governor a list of nine finalists with only one woman, who happened to be the only female applicant Branstad never would have considered appointing.

Cityview's Civic Skinny raised a good point about Branstad's criticism, though:

Instead of sidestepping a question about the retention vote - governors historically stay away from the business and personalities of the court - the Governor on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" unleashed a broadside on Wiggins, accusing him of being intemperate in running the commission. Actually, he can deny he said that. He said, "I suspect there's going to be some people that have grave concerns," and "I think a lot of people" and "some of the judges who were being considered" say Wiggins showed "a lack of temperament in the way he interviewed the candidates and the way they were treated and whether they were all treated in the same even-handed and equitable way." It's "all on videotape," the Governor noted.
Indeed, it's all on videotape because Wiggins and his committee voted to hold public hearings on nominees - for the first time. The governor then interviewed the nine finalists in private despite some calls for him, too, to conduct the interviews in the open. So, as one guy noted, no one knows the temperament of Branstad himself in his interviews or whether he operated "in an even-handed and equitable way."
The Iowa Press crew let him get away with his attack without pointing that out or following up. ...

While we're on the subject of retention votes, last week Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert dismissed a lawsuit filed last December seeking to invalidate the 2010 votes against Ternus, Streit and Baker. The plaintiffs claimed (unconvincingly) that the Iowa Constitution requires a "separate ballot" for judges up for retention. Huppert dismissed the suit without evaluating that claim:

Huppert did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but wrote that "the plaintiffs have not established either a personal or legal interest in this litigation," and could not establish an injury or harm. "The plaintiffs herein have not convinced this court that their position is deserving of judicial resolution," Huppert said.

Even if Huppert had ruled on the merits, the plaintiffs' case was weak. As Bleeding Heartland diarist IowaVoter discussed here, those words have always been understood to require a separate ballot line for each judge, so that voters would not be forced to retain or reject the judges as a group.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

P.S.: This weekend the ACLU Foundation of Iowa is giving the three Supreme Court justices ousted last November the 2011 Louise Noun Award, "presented to those who have made significant contributions to civil liberties in the state."

UPDATE: Ternus will receive an honorary doctorate from Coe College in Cedar Rapids next month, when she delivers the commencement address there.

Register poll on Obama, gay marriage and more

desmoinesdem — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:02:37 GMT

The Des Moines Register continues to release results from its latest statewide poll. Selzer and Co surveyed 800 Iowa adults between February 13 and 16. Bleeding Heartland discussed the Register's poll numbers on Governor Terry Branstad here.

Follow me after the jump to discuss President Barack Obama's approval inching up in Iowa, slight growth in support for same-sex marriage rights, views on ways to close the state budget gap, and more.
Friday's Des Moines Register suggested that Iowans' views of the president reflect the slight improvement in Obama's nationwide approval ratings during the past few months:

Obama's overall 48 percent approval is his highest in more than a year and his 47 percent disapproval is a few points better than in September. The glimmer comes as independent voters, who helped him carry the state in 2008 but had since dropped off, have warmed to him again over the past year. [...]
Iowa's likely voters are somewhat more critical of the president than Iowans in general. More poll respondents who say they plan to definitely vote in 2012 disapprove of Obama's performance than approve, 49 percent to 46 percent. But among all Iowans, the percentage who are satisfied with Obama has inched slightly higher than those who are not for the first time since the Register's November 2009 poll.
In Iowa, Obama improved with political independents to 46 percent, up 4 points since September and 8 points since February.
He also made gains with Democrats and Republicans, but the gap between Democrats and Republicans who support him was 70 percentage points.

Selzer's September 2010 poll for the Register indicated that 45 percent of Iowans approved of Obama's performance, while 50 percent disapproved. In February 2010, Obama was at 46 approve/47 percent disapprove in Iowa.

Given some other findings of Selzer's latest poll, I'm surprised Obama's approval rating is as high as 48 percent. Only 32 percent of respondents said things in the U.S. are "headed in the right direction." About 58 percent of respondents said the nation is "on the wrong track."

Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents said they approved of the job Obama is doing with the economy; 53 percent disapproved. Only 34 percent approved of the job Obama is doing on health care; 60 percent disapproved. Just 31 percent approved of the job Obama is doing on the deficit; 62 percent disapproved. Obama's strongest showing in the Selzer poll was on handling relations with foreign countries, where 54 approved and 38 percent disapproved. These numbers don't prove Iowans would prefer a Republican to handle the economy, health care or the deficit, but they suggest Obama goes into his re-election campaign with real vulnerabilities.

Both Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic Senator Tom Harkin saw some improvement in their approval ratings, according to the latest Selzer poll. Grassley was at 75 percent approval, up from 56 percent in September 2010. Harkin, whose ratings have always run a bit lower than Grassley's is at 55 percent approval in the latest poll. That's up from 48 percent last September.

Over the weekend, the Register reported that Iowans are "split 3 ways on same-sex marriage":

Asked whether they favored or opposed the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in Iowa, 30 percent told the Iowa Poll they just don't care much one way or the other, while 37 percent opposed or strongly opposed the court ruling and 32 percent favored it or strongly favored it.
Poll results also revealed a double-digit ambivalence on two other questions related to same-sex marriage. Asked if the November vote not to retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices was good or bad for Iowa, 17 percent said they're not sure. And if there were a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a quarter of those polled said they would not vote. [...]
Iowans remain fairly evenly divided on each end:
- Thirty-one percent of those polled said they strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, while 26 percent strongly favor it.
- Forty-four percent say the judicial retention vote that ousted three Iowa Supreme Court justices was bad for the state; 39 percent said it was good.
- And 35 percent would vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, while 38 percent would vote against the measure.
Yet the middle ground - a bloc large enough to sway an election one way or the other - seems either genuinely conflicted or simply not interested, Selzer said.

The latest poll suggests Iowans' attitudes have been shifting toward support for marriage equality (though the Register didn't emphasize that angle). A September 2009 Selzer poll for the Register found that 26 percent of Iowans favored the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, 43 percent opposed it and 31 percent didn't care or were unsure. That poll found, "The percentage of Iowans who say they strongly oppose gay marriage (35 percent) is nearly double the percentage who say they strongly favor it (18 percent)." Now the percentage of Iowans who strongly oppose the Supreme Court's ruling (31 percent) is only a bit higher than the percentage who strongly favor it (26 percent).

The September 2009 Register poll also found that 41 percent of respondents would vote for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, 40 percent would vote against it. The rest either would not vote or were not sure. In addition, 92 percent of respondents said legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa had brought "no real change" to their lives.

In February 2010, the Register's Iowa poll found that 62 percent of respondents thought gay marriage "does not deserve the legislature's time." That majority presumably included people who don't care much about the issue as well as people who support same-sex marriage rights.

Incidentally, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,077 Iowa registered voters in early January 2011 and found,

Iowa voters oppose gay marriage- but they also oppose impeaching the judges who made it legal in the state. Only 41% think same sex marriage should be legal, to 52% who think it should be illegal. But at the same time only 38% think the judges who ruled to legalize it should be impeached to 55% who oppose impeachment. There's a significant portion of voters in the state who do oppose same sex marriage but at the same time won't go so far as to say the judges should be removed from office.

The full polling memo (pdf file) has the crosstabs for those questions.

52% think same-sex marriage should not be legal, as it is now in the Hawkeye State, with 41% supporting the new status quo. It is mainly Republicans driving the animosity. 82% of them think same-sex marriage should be illegal, but two-thirds of Democrats are on the legal side, with independents splitting just 46-44 toward it being illegal.
On the impeachment issue, however, Republicans are not as gung-ho as some of their state legislators are. Still twice (60%) as many of them favor impeachment as oppose it, but that is far below the 82-10 margin of Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage itself. Overall, 55% of Iowa voters oppose impeachment, and only 38% support it. At 54-38 against, independents mirror the overall electorate, while Democrats' 79-16 margin against impeachment approaches Republicans' fervor against equal marriage rights.
"This is one of those classic issues where voters agree with Republicans but don't want the party to overplay its hand," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "They're on the same page with wanting same sex marriage to be illegal, but they think it's going too far to impeach the judges who made the ruling to legalize it."

Although PPP found a majority of Iowa voters oppose marriage equality, sentiment appears to be shifting in support of same-sex marriage rights. PPP hasn't asked this question before in an Iowa poll, to my knowledge, so we don't have trendlines, but a Hawkeye poll conducted in March 2009 found only 26 percent supported same-sex marriage rights. In that poll, another 28 percent of Iowans supported civil unions, while 37 percent opposed any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and 9 percent did not know.

On February 28 the Register published the Selzer poll's findings on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Palin's favorability has slipped among Iowa Republicans who say they will vote in 2012 to 65 percent in the poll taken this month from 71 percent in November 2009.
During that time, Palin has produced two best-selling books, become a regular contributor to Fox News Channel and become the subject of a television program on TLC.
She has also visited Iowa four times, including three times to promote her books and once to headline a state Republican Party fundraiser. Each appearance has drawn Iowa and national news coverage.

In the Register's November 2009 poll, 27 percent of Republicans respondents viewed Palin very favorably, 44 percent viewed her mostly favorably, 18 percent viewed her mostly unfavorably and 5 percent viewed her very unfavorably. The latest poll showed 18 percent of likely Republican 2012 voters viewed Palin very favorably, 47 percent mostly favorably, 20 percent mostly unfavorably and 10 percent very unfavorably.

"The change in intensity is statistically significant," said Adam Geller, a Republican pollster and campaign consultant to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's 2009 campaign. "If you're Sarah Palin, you want those lines on the chart going up as the presidential contest gets closer, not going down."

Keep in mind that the subsample of Republican likely 2012 voters was just 189 people, giving Selzer's poll a margin of error of 7.1 percent for the Palin numbers. (The full Iowa poll of 800 respondents has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.) It's still a poor result for Palin, especially since not every Republicans who views her favorably would necessarily support her at a caucus.

Palin's Iowa numbers might not matter if she were very strong in some of the other early-voting states, but her ratings among Republicans are even weaker in New Hampshire. (In contrast, Mitt Romney leads several polls of New Hampshire Republicans, which could make up for his underwhelming numbers among Iowa Republicans.)

Getting back to Selzer's new poll, last week the Register reported that 47 percent of respondents in the new Iowa said they are "personally still feeling the effects of a recession" and 41 percent said they are not personally feeling a recession but are "seeing it affect others" around them. On February 26 the Register reported that 19 percent of respondents said their household income was lower than it had been a year earlier, 55 percent said their household income was about the same, while only 23 percent said their household income was higher than it had been a year earlier.

The lingering recession - layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts - pushed the state's per capita wages down 3.9 percent in 2009 over 2008, when pay was adjusted for inflation, according to income data analyzed by Dave Swenson, an Iowa State University economist.
It's the largest percentage decline in paychecks and other earnings since 1983, when real wages fell 8.1 percent and the state grappled with another monster recession, the farm crisis.
"It's going to take awhile to climb out of the deep pit we've fallen into," Swenson said.

The Register also asked Iowans about some of the controversial issues facing state legislators this session. Respondents seemed receptive to the idea that the universal voluntary preschool program for 4-year-olds is too expensive:

In the new Iowa Poll, conducted Feb. 13-16, 57 percent of participants said Iowa can't afford preschool for all 4-year-old children right now.
And 51 percent of poll participants want only needy families to receive state support. [...]
In the poll, 70 percent of Iowans agreed that public preschool puts children from low-income and middle-class families, as well as children from rural Iowa and cities, on equal footing as they head into kindergarten.

I wonder whether the question wording on preschool may have tipped respondents toward Governor Branstad's position (the state can't afford to continue the current program). The survey asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: "Iowa cannot afford to pay for preschool for all children while we have other budget challenges." That suggests cuts are required to balance Iowa's budget. I agree with State Senator Matt McCoy's comments in the Register write-up on this part of the Iowa poll:

McCoy said state budget concerns have been overblown.
Iowa is expected to have more than $900 million in budget surpluses and emergency accounts when the budget year ends July 1. Branstad wants to cut corporate income taxes by half. He also has proposed trimming commercial property tax by 40 percent in the next four years.
"We can't do corporate income tax breaks that the governor wants to do and do preschool," McCoy said. "But we can do preschool and allowable growth for schools and about $180 million worth of tax cuts that the Senate passed and still stay within our budget as a state. The question is, where are our priorities?"

Selzer's new poll asked about other ways to close Iowa's budget gap. Here are the notable findings:

Amid a national tug-of-war over budget expenses and union rights, The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll shows 61 percent of Iowa adults favor workers chipping in that much, while 35 percent oppose such a requirement.
"Even about half of those living in union households, 49 percent, agree with this," said J. Ann Selzer, the Iowa Poll's director.
Among five revenue or spending proposals polled - including the gas tax, business tax credits, passenger train service and anti-smoking programs - extracting more health care contributions from public workers is the one most Iowans favor. [...]
Passenger trains: On the topic of passenger rail, the poll shows Iowans are interested in the state committing financial support to establish service between Iowa City and Chicago, with 56 percent in favor and 39 percent against.
"They're saying, 'We want trains,'" Selzer said.[...]
The Iowa Poll shows that 60 percent of young Iowans are on board with committing state financial support for the train.
Iowans who said they are Democrats want it most (73 percent are in favor), followed by independents (54 percent), the poll shows. A majority of Republicans (52 percent) don't want the state to spend on passenger rail improvements.
Among women, 62 percent favor state spending for train service while men are more divided (50 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed).
Anti-smoking: Iowans also like a proposal by Republicans in the Legislature to eliminate spending on anti-smoking advertisements and programs to help people quit smoking. Fifty-three percent favor this; 44 percent oppose it.
The poll shows a majority of Iowans who identified themselves as a liberal are against halting state funding for the smoking cessation programs.
Democrats in the Legislature want to continue spending for Quitline, a state-sponsored telephone-counseling program that uses trained staff to help smokers kick the habit, and Just Eliminate Lies, a youth-oriented program known for its stark anti-tobacco ads.
Fuel taxes: When it comes to taxes on gasoline, a solid majority of Iowans have no desire to raise the tax 5 to 10 cents a gallon in order to repair more roads and bridges. Seventy percent oppose a tax increase; 29 percent favor it. [...]
Business tax credits: The poll shows 26 percent of Iowans would like to eliminate all tax credits to businesses, but 68 percent oppose that.
The state provides tax credits for research and development, high-quality job creation, capital investment, and other activities. In 2010 for the research activities credit alone, the state provided about $45 million in tax credits to 160 companies. Of those companies, 133 corporations paid no taxes and instead received checks of about $43 million.

Poll results don't necessarily sway Iowa legislators. The I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program passed the state House and Senate in April 2009 despite a March 2009 Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register, in which 71 percent of respondents agreed that Iowa should "pay for the projects as it has the money over time," while only 24 percent supported "Governor Chet Culver's plan to borrow money to speed up public works projects."

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Obama ditches DOMA and other marriage equality news

desmoinesdem — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:33:58 GMT

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court. Section 3 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It has been challenged in court multiple times, and last July a federal judge ruled the provision unconstitutional. The DOJ appealed that ruling, but Holder announced yesterday that President Barack Obama

has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

I've posted Holder's complete statement after the jump. It notes, "Much of the the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA." While some conservative commentators were outraged by the announcement, it's important to remember that the Obama administration hasn't stopped enforcing the DOMA despite the president's opinion of the law.

Linda Hirshman argues that Obama has laid a trap for Congressional Republicans, who will look foolish in federal court if and when they defend Section 3. I think she is way too optimistic that the federal appeals process will uphold last year's district court opinion. Hirshman and I may find the legal arguments supporting the DOMA weak, but it would not surprise me to see a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of Section 3.

I was surprised to see so little Iowa reaction to Holder's announcement. The outcome of this federal litigation will affect thousands of legally married Iowa same-sex spouses, who would be eligible for some federal benefits if the law is struck down. As far as I know, Senator Chuck Grassley is the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on yesterday's news. He's the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he criticized the Obama administration's decision as "clearly based more on politics than the law." He stopped short of promising to help with the DOMA legal defense, but presumably Congressional Republicans who are attorneys will handle that. I posted Grassley's complete statement after the jump.

Republicans in the Iowa legislature continue to fight marriage equality. A constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman passed the Iowa House last month but will not reach the floor of the Iowa Senate. A short-lived legislative effort to legalize discrimination against married same-sex couples was backed by many Republicans and at least one Democrat, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson tabled that bill before it received a subcommittee vote.

A new bill, House File 330, would prevent Iowa county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples "until such time as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is submitted to the electorate for ratification." The same bill would block the Iowa Supreme Court from considering its constitutionality. There are some pretty big problems with that idea, though:

That outcome: Iowa families could appeal a recorder's decision in trial courts but those decisions would not be able to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
It would make the lower courts ruling final and it would also set up the likelihood that Iowa would have pockets of the state were the law was recognized and others were it was thrown out.
"I think the result is that you would have a hodgepodge of rulings across the state," Bartrum said. "It would depend on whatever the local district judge thought because were would be no uniform appeal."

FRIDAY UPDATE: According to Troy Price of One Iowa, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has communicated by e-mail that House File 330 is going nowhere. KCRG reports,

Top Republicans on Thursday said they have no plans to debate the issue, viewing it a nod to the party's social conservative wing. [...]
Backers say introducing the measure is one more opportunity to voice their displeasure with how the marriage issue has been handled.
Republican Rep. Betty De Boef says the issue has been handled badly and that some lawmakers want to take every opportunity to make that point.

In related news, Maryland is likely to become the sixth state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. A bill on marriage equality is advancing in the Maryland Senate and has substantial support in that state's House of Delegates. Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Washington, DC has recognized same-sex marriages since December 2009. Some U.S. House Republicans are pushing a bill to reverse that policy. If a same-sex marriage ban for the nation's capital cleared the House and the U.S. Senate, Obama would probably veto it given his decision to stop defending DOMA.

Hawaii's new Democratic governor Neil Abercrombie signed a civil unions bill yesterday, bringing the number of states that recognize same-sex civil unions to seven. Republican Governor Linda Lingle vetoed a similar bill in Hawaii last year.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports,

Some opponents of same-sex marriage said the administration's decision could end up helping to preserve the law in court.
"The previous efforts of the Obama administration and DOJ to defend the law were so inadequate as to raise the suspicion that the Justice Department was deliberately throwing the case," said Robert George, a political science professor at Princeton University who opposes same-sex marriage. "Chances are the law will get a robust defense, and I suspect it will withstand constitutional scrutiny." [...]
In his letter to [House Speaker John] Boehner, Holder criticized portions of the congressional debate leading up to the law's passage, saying they had undermined the prospects for defending the measure. "The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against,'' Holder wrote.

Statement from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON - The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department's course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:
In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.
Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.
Furthermore, pursuant to the President' s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.
The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because - as here - the Department does not consider every such argument to be a "reasonable" one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.
Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Reporters and Editors
RE: Administration announcement on DOMA
DA: Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, issued the comment below about the Obama administration's announcement today that it no longer will defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Today's decision is clearly based more on politics than the law because numerous federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Given the substantial record in the courts and the administration's acknowledgement that arguments can be made to defend the law, it's hard to see how the announcement isn't simply a roundabout expression by the President of support for same-sex marriage, which he said during the campaign that he opposed. I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress, which President Clinton signed into law, defining marriage as between one man and one woman and preventing states from being forced to honor the decisions of other state courts."

Weekend open thread: Hot-button issues edition

desmoinesdem — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:00 GMT

What's on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Some news that caught my eye recently:

Tens of thousands of people in Wisconsin have protested against efforts by Republican Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature to impose big benefit cuts on public employees and curtail their collective bargaining rights. The 14 Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate left the state to deny Republicans a quorum for passing the anti-union bill. I've been following the day to day news on the Uppity Wisconsin blog.

Joel Northup, a wrestler for Linn-Mar high school, qualified for the state tournament but defaulted when his bracket paired him with Cassy Herkelman, a girl from Cedar Falls. Herkelman and Megan Black of Ottumwa made history this year by becoming the first girls to qualify for the Iowa high school state wrestling tournament.

Johnson County supervisors voted 5-0 on Thursday to ban firearms and dangerous weapons from buildings, lands and vehicles owned by the county. Some Republicans in the Iowa legislature are pushing a bill that would bar local governments from restricting guns in that manner.

State Senator Mark Chelgren's stupid comments about Iowa's voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds prompted Mr. desmoinesdem to look up information about pre-primary education in the Communist bloc. Contrary to Chelgren's assertion that the Soviets started indoctrinating children early, when "they're so malleable," the USSR provided essentially day care rather than formal education for children under age 7.

The Internal Revenue Service declared this month that breast pumps are a tax-deductible expense, reversing a determination made last fall. A quality pump can cost hundreds of dollars. Pumping has its detractors but can be invaluable for working women who want to continue breastfeeding, or for women whose babies are unable to breastfeed.

Zach Wahls, whose testimony against the marriage amendment at an Iowa House public hearing went viral on YouTube, appeared on the Ellen show this week.

Governor Terry Branstad's double-dipping (continuing to draw his $50,000 state pension while receiving a $130,000 salary as governor) made news in Iowa a few days ago. Branstad's communications director, Tim Albrecht, said the governor "made a significant personal sacrifice" by resigning as president of Des Moines University. In that job he had received more than $350,000 per year.

One low-profile story that should be getting more attention is the wide-ranging spending cut bill under consideration in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1 would decimate funding for too many good programs to list in this post. For example, Iowa would lose $12 million in K-12 funding for various programs, $116 million in Pell grant funds, $1.4 million for vocational and adult education, $6.9 million for job training, $1 million for mental health and substance abuse treatment grants, $4.3 million for various low-income housing programs, $28 million in clean water-related funds, $28 million for Community Development Block Grants, and $1.3 million for justice assistance grants. Key transportation programs nationwide would also lose funding, including public transit and high-speed rail.

This is an open thread.

Open letter to Kim Pearson State Representative

Peacock372 — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 05:47:01 GMT

Excerpt from the post.culture.shock blog

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

This is your former neighbor, Stephanie Bell, writing you from a long ways away-Oxford, England, to be specific. I hope this letter finds you, your husband, and your daughters well. I know it's been a long time since we were last in touch, but my mother suggested I reach out to you and let you know what I've been up to since you knew me as a middle schooler, over a decade ago. [...]

I'm at Oxford now, honored to represent the state of Iowa on a Rhodes Scholarship and studying international development. I intend to spend my life figuring out how to empower people to make their lives better-whether that's improving the education system in the US or working on public health abroad, I'm not sure yet. I am pretty sure, however, that I got here by being a good neighbor-by making good on all of those values I learned growing up in Iowa. While I may have left Iowa awhile ago, it's never left me. In the most recent snowstorm in England (you might have heard about all the flight cancellations and such in Heathrow-the English are not a hardy people compared to Iowans), I was stunned by the condition of the sidewalks in Oxford. No one shoveled them, and in a day or so, they became dangerous sheets of ice, some four inches thick. This never happened where I grew up. People cleared their walks for the convenience and safety of their community, and if there was someone nearby who wasn't able to clean their walk, their neighbors would do it for them, no questions or future favors asked.

I have an immense fondness for Iowa, and pride in my state for reasons that are exemplified in that somewhat silly anecdote. There's a certain pragmatism about life in Iowa, a stoicism in folks' willingness to go out and take care of business, regardless of how cold it is. But most importantly, there's a sense of responsibility to each other, an understanding of oneself as a part of a bigger community, a community that is more than just the sum of its parts. And one of the things I love so much about Iowa's sense of community is that it, too, is pragmatic. It's a sense of community that recognizes that people are different, and so have different needs, different aspirations, different desires. It's a community born of understanding that what's good for the goose might not be good for the gander-and in that pragmatism, it's respectful. The Iowa I know, the Iowa I grew up in was one that celebrated the diversity it had. The Iowa values I was raised on included everyone in that community-and the ties that bound us were stronger than the divides created by our differences.

You may be wondering why, over a decade down the road, I decided to contact you with what I've been up to and my meditations on and pride in my home state of Iowa. Part of it is to congratulate you on your election to the House, and to thank you for serving our state. And the other part of it is to make a plea, from one good neighbor to another.

Kim, I'm gay. I figured it out in the middle of my senior year of high school, and I stayed in the closet until I graduated. I adored Valley, but I also knew it wasn't the most tolerant of places. My life was running too smoothly to rock the boat. I was so honored when I was elected to speak at graduation and I was on friendly terms with nearly everyone in my class. I was afraid all of that would end if I came out. I told my mother before I left for college, and I waited two years before telling my dad because I was so worried about how he would react. I don't think you know my parents well, but my dad is fiscally conservative and we rarely talked about social issues. I think he's voted Republican in every election since the age of 18. I'd seen friends of mine come out (or be forcibly outed by others), and have their parents reject them-refuse to pay for college, kick them out of the house, tell them they were worthless. While I didn't think my father would react as badly as that, I spent two years of my life too scared to tell him. My uncertainty of his reaction meant I stayed silent, to ensure that I didn't destroy a relationship with someone I deeply love and respect. I shouldn't have been so scared. Both of my parents were immediately supportive when I told them. In that regard, I'm tremendously lucky.

Coming out to my parents was hardly easy, but thankfully, they know what I know: that I'm the same person I was before I realized I was gay. I have the same sense of humor, the same love for my family and sense of responsibility toward them. My relationships with my parents and sister are stronger than they've ever been. The fact that the one time in my short life I was in love, I was in love with a woman has done nothing to change my personality, or my belief in the value of service that I know you and I share. I remain the same good neighbor-to you, and to the world-that I've always been. I thought Iowa understood this too. April 3, 2009, when the Supreme Court unanimously and courageously fulfilled their sworn obligation to uphold the constitution, and legalized gay marriage, was the day on which I was proudest to be an Iowan. I recognize that the way I lead my life makes some people uncomfortable-just as the ways others lead their lives sometimes make me uncomfortable. But on April 3, Iowa moved past that discomfort, or so I thought. The justices voted regardless of their political opinions, because that's what the law demanded of them. That's also what a true sense of justice and equality demands: equal civil rights for all.

When I was working after college, I lived with my girlfriend, Cheryl. Cheryl is easily one of the most compassionate and bravest people I've ever met-someone I was proud to introduce to my family. She works as a special education teacher in one of the worst performing and most violent districts in the country. Her school draws from multiple gang territories. Kids bring weapons to school routinely, sometimes for aggression, and sometimes for self defense. Serious gang fights break out on a regular basis. One night she came home to the apartment that we shared and told me that a massive riot had broken out that day in an assembly. She was one of three teachers present, and they had been barricaded in by students. As you might imagine, Kim, it was chaos, and a number of the kids were injured. In addition to being so, so thankful that Cheryl and her fellow teachers were all right, and that nothing worse had happened to the students, I was forced to think about the fact that if anything had happened, I wouldn't have been able to visit her in the hospital-the State of California didn't recognize our relationship. Lesbians and gays across the country are literally putting themselves in the line of fire for the rest of society, as school teachers in gang territories, as police officers, as fire fighters. Yet their partners lack the security of knowing that if anything goes wrong, they'll be able to see them in the hospital, to reassure them that they'll be all right, or, heaven forbid, to see them alive one last time.

But what deeply worries and outrages me is that I shouldn't have to justify having the same rights as the rest of society on my attempts to be a good citizen. Like you, I serve because I think it's the right thing to do-it's how I was raised-not because I think that's how I'll get equal rights. It shouldn't be relevant that the people we're depriving of their rights are police officers, fire fighters, and school teachers. No other group has to justify their rights by pointing to all that they've contributed to the world, something gays are repeatedly challenged on. The rest of society has the right to marry because they're part of society, period. The openly gay San Francisco City Councilman, Harvey Milk, gave a moving speech on equal rights, which opened with the idea that a young person in Des Moines who recognizes that he or she is gay has two options: to move to San Francisco, or to stay and fight for an equal world, for a better tomorrow. I've done both. I was living in San Francisco when Proposition 8 was passed and banned gay marriage in California, and when Iowa surprised the nation by making a courageous move to defend the civil rights of all people in its borders. Over thirty years after Milk was assassinated, I thought Iowa had moved beyond pushing its LGBT youth to live elsewhere when it recognized that depriving gays of their right to marry was fundamentally discriminatory and wrong. It's an offense to our understanding of democracy and freedom to remove the rights of some because they make others uncomfortable, or because others disagree with the ways they lead their lives. It goes against the Iowan values I was raised on, which were founded on sensibility and respect. There's nothing sensible about legislating bigotry. And nothing about it is neighborly.

Respectfully yours,

Stephanie Bell

Iowa HJR 6 - Zach Says It All

Mark Langgin — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:54:47 GMT

Proud to be an Iowan. Period. Thanks Zach.

Six Iowa Republicans who may live to regret marriage vote

desmoinesdem — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 GMT

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats' speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state's interest in promoting childbearing:

"We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That's the issue. It's not about love. It's not about romance. It's about driving state policy toward responsible procreation."

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar "slippery slope" concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one's tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren't eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland "answered" Willems' question, but in a non-responsive way.

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they're doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as "government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens." Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today's debate. Many must realize that they're on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A "loud and proud" statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today's Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been "wrong" to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they'd had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.
I had two criteria in drawing up this list: the Republican had to be young enough to be a plausible candidate for higher office 15 to 30 years down the road, and had to live in a part of Iowa that is already relatively tolerant of marriage equality. I haven't seen any polling of the issue at the local level, but I consider the 2010 vote on judicial retention to be roughly indicative of how strongly Iowans opposed the Varnum v Brien ruling. This map shows the judicial retention vote by county. A majority of voters sought to retain Iowa's Supreme Court justices in nine of the 99 counties, suggesting that in those counties only a minority of voters were outraged about marriage equality.

Several young members of the Iowa House represent largely conservative counties. For instance, Matt Windschitl (House district 56) and Jason Schultz (House district 55) are only 27 and 28 years old, respectively, and both seem ambitious enough to run for higher office someday. But they don't make my list, because if they run for the state Senate or Congress in western Iowa someday, having a record of opposing same-sex marriage is unlikely to hurt them.

By the same token, Mark Lofgren (House district 80, Muscatine County), Walt Rogers (House district 20, Black Hawk County) and Bob Hager (House district 16, including Winneshiek County) all represent districts where a relatively high proportion of Iowans rejected last year's campaign against Iowa Supreme Court judges. However, those representatives don't make my list because they're all pushing 50 and therefor are unlikely to run for higher office decades from now.

In alphabetical order, here are six Republicans on my list:

Peter Cownie is a second-term state legislator from House district 60, covering most of West Des Moines. The suburban area in Polk County leans to the GOP but has traditionally elected socially moderate Republicans. Cownie is the son of the well-connected Jim Cownie and the husband of a recent Terry Branstad appointee. At only 30 years old, Cownie may have a long political career ahead.

Pat Grassley is serving his third term in the Iowa House at age 27. I've long believed Senator Chuck Grassley sought a sixth term last year in part because his grandson wasn't yet old enough to run for the U.S. Senate. Pat Grassley didn't draw a Democratic opponent in Iowa House district 17 last year, because Butler and Bremer counties are in a strong Republican pocket of northeast Iowa. However, if he ever wants to run for Congress, he would be in a district where the population centers are more socially liberal.

Chris Hagenow is a second-term representative from House district 59, covering the Des Moines suburbs of Clive, Windsor Heights and part of West Des Moines. He's just 39 years old and considered likely to seek higher office. Hagenow works with former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker in Iowa's most politically ambitious law firm. The Des Moines area has a large LGBT community, and even some wealthy GOP-leaning areas in Hagenow's district voted yes on retaining the Supreme Court justices last year. Polk County will only grow more accepting of same-sex marriage.

Erik Helland is only 30 years old but has already risen to the post of Iowa House majority whip. He represents House district 69, covering suburban and rural areas in northern Polk County. Like Hagenow, he'll need a strong base in Polk County if he ever runs for Congress.

Renee Schulte is in her second term representing House district 27, which covers part of Cedar Rapids in Linn County. The Cedar Rapids area is welcoming toward same-sex couples. Schulte is only 40 years old and could have a long political career ahead of her, if redistricting doesn't put her in a Democratic-leaning House district very soon. She won re-election comfortably in 2010 but carried her swing district by just 13 votes in 2008.

Nick Wagner is a second-term state representative from House district 36, covering some suburban and rural areas in Linn County. He's only 37 years old and could run for the state Senate or perhaps Congress someday.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Will these or any other Iowa Republicans ever be embarrassed that they voted for House Joint Resolution 6? Or will voting against marriage not carry the same stigma in the future as opposing civil rights policies has? Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Bonus prediction: the Iowa Republican most likely to renounce his support for the marriage amendment someday is former gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong. His political base is in Cedar Rapids. He has personally experienced bigotry and values inclusive, non-shaming political rhetoric. I could easily imagine him giving a speech like Jeff Angelo's someday.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that if any elected Republican were brave enough to oppose this constitutional amendment, he or she would face a certain primary challenge in 2012. It may be a long time before it is safe for Iowa Republicans to appear to tolerate marriage equality.

SECOND UPDATE: Angelo posted the full text of his remarks at the House hearing at his blog.

Events coming up during the next two weeks

desmoinesdem — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:20:00 GMT

A busy week at the Iowa legislature kicks off Monday evening with what's sure to be a packed Iowa House hearing on a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition for same-sex relationships. Groups supporting conservation of Iowa's natural resources have several rallies and lobby days planned during the next two weeks. Those and other event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be included on this calendar.

Yet another winter storm is heading for Iowa this week, but spring rains aren't too far off. Gardeners and anyone who cares about conserving water and reducing runoff may be interested in a sale of rain barrels (all repurposed to keep waste out of landfills). Proceeds benefit the non-profit 1000 Friends of Iowa, specifically to "support the development of an educational exhibit which focuses on land use and water as it relates to run-off from non-porous surfaces as well as to bring attention to the many uses for collected rain water." Those uses include watering gardens, washing cars and general housecleaning. Click here for more information about the rain barrels and here to order by February 11.
Monday, January 31

The Iowa House is holding a public hearing from 6:30 to 8:45 pm to discuss House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and any legal recognition for same-sex couples. One Iowa is asking supporters to arrive at the capitol rotunda early, around 5 pm, to get seats in the gallery. No word on whether the FAMiLY LEADER will again give cookies to the marriage equality supporters who attend the hearing.

Sally Bowzer, chief of staff of Representative Leonard Boswell's Iowa office, is retiring after 27 years working in state government and 10 years on Boswell's staff. Boswell is hosting a reception in Bowzer's honor on January 31 from 5 pm to 7 pm at Baby Boomer's Restaurant at 303 East 5th Street in Des Moines.

Tuesday, February 1

Iowa Rivers Revival from 5pm to 7 pm at Noodle Zoo Café, E 6th and Locust in the east village neighborhood of Des Moines. This event is fee and open to all river supporters. Here are a few of the pending bills Iowa Rivers Revival is most concerned about:

Many bills that would negatively impact natural resource management have been introduced in the Iowa Legislature. There are bills that would limit hiking of state lands to trails only, severely limit the DNR from acquiring real estate for public use, roll back bottle deposits, sell a state park, and reallocate REAP, and take back remaining balance of last year's appropriation for REAP.
House File 45-REAP
Every year conservationists have to lobby hard for full funding of REAP ($20M) which was lowered last year to $15M from $16M and the previous year and from $18M the year before that. Now the Iowa House wants to HF45 take back the uncommitted FY10 REAP funds of over $3 million. This is an attempt to balance this year's budget, however represents a miniscule portion of the Iowa budget. This REAP appropriation was designated by our elected legislators, but now the new legislature plans to take that appropriation back, even after a 63% voter mandating more funding for natural resources.
Additionally, the bill limits the DNR from adding any new real estate, even easements, to public use lands. And further, HF51 has been introduced to reallocate REAP funds from use in purchasing real estate to management of real estate. HF64 further limits the use of eminent domain to be sure it is not used in any way to add land for all Iowans to enjoy. There is a full on assault on our right to acquire real estate for the public good. This has to be stopped! Call your legislators today and ask for a NO vote on HF45.
Senate File 53-Watershed Management Planning
SF53, has been introduced by Senator Hogg, this bill would direct the DNR to establish goals for reducing flood damage through retention structures or wetlands. Senator Hogg has approached IRR to ask our supporters to contact their legislators to support SF53. Senator Hogg's leadership in flood mitigations efforts stretches to the coordination of the newly established Cedar River Watershed Association who was effective passing an ordinance in Cedar Rapids that would not allow development in the 500 year floodplain. We will continue to monitor the bill and watch for any amendments that would change the intent. Be sure to let your legislators know that this is a good bill and Iowa needs better floodplain management.
Example: this is a current map of the Iowa River Greenbelt project that was started in by the Hardin County Conservation board in the 1950's and is still one of their priorities today. Without DNR authority to buy land, enter into conservation easements, or accept donated land we would not have this project. Long-term economic development is dependent on public access to natural resources it is a non-partisan, business friendly goal to have more protected greenbelts that are key to outdoor sports and clean water.
DNR Rivers Program
Governor Branstad is considering layoff newly hired employees to balance the current budget, this could have a disastrous affect on the DNR's River Team. River users are getting a lot for the very small cost of this program and it must be kept intact. The Rivers Program has provided invaluable dam hazard mitigation, which has received support for past legislatures, to help educate Iowan's about dams safety, as a result the dams and people using them are safer today than before initiating this program. The program went through a statewide planning process it create a River Trails development manual for communities that would like to develop water trails on their rivers, and additionally, providing recreational opportunities that are free and close to home. We are all experiencing tough economic times and now more than ever we have a greater need to offer safe, low-cost, close to home recreational opportunities. Last year the DNR's Low Head Dam Safety program was completely eliminated from annual appropriations - we have to speak up to save the programs that are most important to us and Iowa's rivers!

Thursday, February 3

The Iowa Environmental Council and many of its member organizations are holding a lobby day at the state capitol.

You can drop in anytime between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to view member organization exhibits and talk with legislators about Iowa's most pressing environmental issues. Learn about our current legislative priorities at a press conference at 11 a.m. Talking Points and Iowa Environmental Council staff will also be available to provide lobbying guidance and to speak to groups who come to participate.
Lawmakers tell us over and over again that they need to hear from Iowans who live in their districts-not just the organizations that represent them. Please plan to attend and to let your state Senator and Representative know in advance, that you plan to visit them on February 3.

By the way, the Iowa Environmental Council publishes a useful legislative bulletin periodically during the session. You can also sign up to receive action alerts regarding pending legislation.

Sunday, February 6

Iowa State professor Gene Takle will answer the question, "Will climate change impact the sustainability of Iowa farms?" as part of the annual Shivvers Lecture at 7 pm in the ISU Memorial Union Sun Room in Ames. From the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture:

Designing sustainable practices for managing today's landscapes under pressure for producing food, feed, fuel and fiber presents major challenges. However, designing sustainable practices that also are resilient under future climates adds a new dimension to these challenges. Takle, who has a dual appointment in ISU Agronomy and ISU Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, will outline some current and future threats to sustainability of resilient landscapes.
"Gene is internationally recognized as one of our leading climate scientists and he has given considerable attention to the impacts of climate change on agriculture, so his lecture should be of special interest to Iowa farmers," said Fred Kirschenmann, Distinguished Fellow for the Leopold Center of Sustainable Agriculture, which is co-sponsor of the event with the ISU Committee on Lectures.
Takle is the director of Iowa State's Climate Science Program and a member of the Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee that recently submitted its report to the Iowa Legislature. The report details the impact of climate change in Iowa (details at www.energy.iowa.gov ).
The Shivvers lecture has been presented at ISU since 1969 in memory of John Shivvers, who farmed near Knoxville. The lectures focus on ways that agriculture can sustain rather than destroy natural resources. This year's lecture is part of ISU's Live Green! Sustainability Series.

Wednesday, February 9

The Iowa's Water and Land Legacy coalition is organizing supporters of natural resources funding to come to the capitol. From Mark Langgin's recent diary at Bleeding Heartland:

Iowa's Water and Land Legacy - RALLY DAY
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
9-11AM
PRE-RALLY: Wallace Bldg Auditorium-E 9th & Grand Av, Des Moines
RALLY: Iowa State Capitol Building: E 9th St & Grand Av, Des Moines
WEAR any color solid blue - we want to present water as we FLOW into the Iowa State Capitol
YES 63
Join Iowa's Water and Land Legacy on February 9th as we ascend upon the State Capitol to remind our legislators that Iowans overwhelmingly support increased and sustainable funding for water quality, soil conservation, and our outdoor natural areas. Help exhibit this energy. We will provide a brief presentation, including messaging about our visit, comments from supportive legislators, and RALLY DAY stickers and materials.
It's time for our elected officials to listen to Iowans and FUND THE TRUST FUND. Help us FLOOD the Capitol Rotunda in blue-volunteers are asked to wear any solid blue shirt and to be a part of statewide presence-children are encouraged to participate.
Rally Day Objectives:
* Improving Water Quality For Future
Generations
* Investing In Our Agricultural Economy By Reducing Soil Erosion
* Protecting Fish & Wildlife Habitat And Public Access To Hunting Areas
* Creating Jobs And Economic Opportunity In Both Rural & Urban Iowa
63% of Iowa voters affirmed the NEED for the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, which provides a permanent and constitutionally protected funding mechanism for conserving and enhancing water quality, reducing flooding, protecting agricultural soils, fish and wildlife habitat and natural areas while also providing for our parks, trails, outdoor recreation and educational needs.
Iowa's Water and Land Legacy continues to work towards fulfilling the will of Iowa voters by advocating for the following three objectives:
Preserve Work to provide a dedicated sustainable funding sources for conservation without growing the size of government, by preserving existing funding levels for voluntary conservation programs and to continue to invest in important programs such as the Environment First Fund, REAP, and others that invest in Iowa's natural resources without raising taxes.
Protect Safeguard the Natural Resources & Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund allocation formula as spelled out during the 2010 legislative session through bipartisan consensus.
Provide Identify and advocate for a sustainable source of Trust Fund revenue and supplement existing conservation funding in lieu of a 3/8th percent state sales tax increase.
Funding for voluntary conservation incentives and critical natural resource and outdoor recreation infrastructure can help create jobs, grow our economy, and protect our quality of life in Iowa - without creating new built in spending obligations.
Funding the Natural Resources & Outdoor Recreation
Trust Fund demonstrates a commitment to improving Iowa's water quality and conserving our agricultural soils.
Iowa's Water & Land Legacy is an Iowa based non-profit operating as a project of The Conservation Campaign as a 501c(4) non-profit. www.iowaswaterandlandlegacy.org

Thursday, February 10

Another lobby day at the capitol for environment-minded Iowans:

You are invited to join Trees Forever and the Coalition for Iowa's Woodlands and Trees at the Iowa State Capitol on Feb. 10, 2011. We will have displays in the West Wing of the Rotunda from 9 am to 3 pm.
We need volunteers to attend, speak with their legislators and help around the displays throughout the day. If you are interested, please email Becky at bsmith AT treesforever.org or call her at 319-373-0650 ext. 12.
Your voice at the Capitol can make a difference on issues like House File 45, which includes the following items that will negatively impact our environment:
* De-appropriates over 3 million dollars from this years REAP funding
* Eliminates the Office of Energy Independence
* Directs the DOT to not pay for any roadside wildflowers or native plants this fiscal year
* Eliminates all language supporting smart planning land use principles from the Iowa Code
Other organizations displaying or providing materials with us are the Iowa Tree Farm Committee, Iowa Woodland Owners Association, The Brenton Arboretum, Iowa DNR, Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship and Iowa State Extension.
Parking at the Capitol: The most convenient parking at the capitol is in the west or south parking lots. There is also free parking along the streets or in the parking garage just to the west of the Wallace Building. These are all easy walks, and if you like you can drop folks and displays off at the service door on the west side of the capitol, which has security. The only other door you can come in is the east door, which has gated parking for staff and legislators.

The Iowa Renewable Energy Association is holding a workshop on solar photovoltaic (PV) 101 at the Iowa Renewable Energy Training Center (IRETC) located at Prairiewoods in Hiawathwa (Cedar Rapids area). Click here for more details.

Friday, February 11

It's the last day to order a rain barrel made of recycled materials to support 1000 Friends of Iowa. Click here for more information about the barrels and here to order.

Tuesday, February 15

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is holding a series of public meetings around the state to discuss water quality standards. The first will take place in Atlantic from 4 pm to 7 pm on February 15 at the Rock Island Depot, 102 Chestnut St. Background:

DES MOINES ~~The DNR wants to know Iowans' thoughts on improving the state's water quality goals as the DNR conducts its every~~three-years review of water quality standards. Iowans can attend one of six meetings across the state.
The meetings, part of the triennial review process set forth in the federal Clean Water Act, allow Iowans the opportunity to provide the DNR information to help in setting the goals for streams and rivers.
"This is the public's opportunity to tell us what is important to them," said Rochelle Cardinale, the DNR's water quality standards coordinator. "We want to hear Iowans' concerns about potential pollutant levels, how streams are being used and how to protect existing water quality."
The triennial review process ensures water quality standards, as listed in Chapter 61 of the Iowa Administrative Code, are up-to-date. Following the public comment period, the DNR will meet with a technical advisory committee to evaluate the suggestions. The DNR will then prioritize issues identified in the comments and develop a proposed work plan to address those items.

Wednesday, February 16

The Iowa Department for Natural Resources has scheduled a public meeting to discuss lead air pollution in Council Bluffs:

The Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Bureau (DNR) will hold a public meeting Feb. 16 at 9:30 a.m. at the Council Bluffs Community Hall, 205 South Main Street, on a proposed lead nonattainment area in Council Bluffs. The purpose of the meetings is to provide more information on the proposed nonattainment area and seek input from the public, businesses and other affected stakeholders.
A nonattainment area is designated when outdoor (ambient) air pollution levels violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The lead monitor located in Council Bluffs has measured five violations of the NAAQS for lead, from data collected through October 2010.
In 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the lead NAAQS from 1.5 to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, measured as a consecutive three-month rolling average. EPA lowered the lead NAAQS due to recent scientific studies that indicate people's health is impacted at lower levels than previously understood.
Because the monitor measures ambient air quality and not specific sources of lead pollution, the EPA has directed the DNR to make a nonattainment area boundary recommendation that will focus the DNR's effort in planning to bring the affected area back into attainment by December 2016. Sources of lead emissions to the air include industrial combustion and ore and metals processing.
Please contact Jim McGraw at (515) 242-5167 jim.mcgraw AT dnr.iowa.gov or Matthew Johnson at (515) 242-5164 matthew.johnson AT dnr.iowa.gov with questions about the meeting. More information about the monitoring data is available on the DNR website at http://www.iowadnr.gov/air/pro...

Ten dishonest talking points on the marriage amendment in Iowa

desmoinesdem — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:46:47 GMT

A constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite sex advanced on January 24 in both a subcommittee of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and the full committee. House Joint Resolution 6 states, "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state." Iowa Republicans have promised for months to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court's 2009 decision striking down the state's Defense of Marriage Act. This amendment goes further, barring any kind of legal union apart from marriage and therefore any legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

After an emotionally charged subcommittee hearing with more than 200 observers present, Republicans Dwayne Alons and Chris Hagenow voted to advance the amendment, while Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell voted no. Later in the day, the full House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13 to 8 vote. Democrat Kurt Swaim joined all 12 Republicans in voting yes, while the other Democrats on the committee voted no. Click here for a list of House Judiciary Committee members.

Reading the news coverage of yesterday's debate, I was struck by how many misleading talking points were used to justify denying rights and privileges to thousands of Iowans.
1. From State Representative Dwayne Alons, the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6: "This is the direction of the people, by the people, for the people and we should not lose sight of that."

The Iowa Constitution has never been amended to restrict people's rights. Making minority rights contingent to a majority vote goes against what this country stands for.

2. Alons also suggested that the public needs to vote on an amendment because the Iowa Code still contains language struck down by the Supreme Court in Varnum v Brien:

Despite the court's decision, [Alons] said, the definition of marriage - between one man and one woman - remains a part of the Iowa Code, Alons said. The Legislature had a chance to remove that last year when Democrats controlled the House and Senate as well as the governor's office.
"Your side failed. You didn't want to touch it," Alons said.

Ever since the Varnum v Brien decision came down, some Iowa conservatives have been making a big deal about how the Defense of Marriage Act remains part of the Iowa Code. Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady addressed a version of this argument in his condition of the judiciary speech on January 13. Judicial review has been part of our country's legal system for more than 200 years. When courts strike down a law, legislators are not required to take further action to remove or correct the language at issue.

3. Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson, explaining why he will schedule a public hearing before the full House votes on the constitutional amendment:

"This is one of those really important issues that divide our country," he said. "I know that our tone and demeanor will be exemplary in helping the people of Iowa and America see how Iowans and Americans can disagree in a context of respect and honor."

I love when Republicans congratulate themselves for the very gracious way they seek to revoke other people's rights. Anderson's remarks reminded me of how onetime gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong used to urge Republicans to talk about the marriage issue in a "respectful and honoring way." If you really respect and honor diversity of views and experiences, you should understand that the state shouldn't be picking and choosing which Iowans get to marry their partners.

4. Tom Chapman of Iowa Catholic Conference, the first member of the public to speak at yesterday's subcommittee hearing:

"We think that that it takes a man and a woman to have a marriage. Marriage is definitely about the emotional desires and needs of adults, it's about the love people have for one another but we also believe on a very important element it's about the possibility of bringing children into the world."

Come on. Thousands of heterosexual couples who get married have no chance or intention to bring children into the world. The Iowa Catholic Conference would never suggest that childless married heterosexuals don't deserve the legal rights and benefits that go along with marriage.

Chapman explained that the Iowa Catholic Conference's support for the constitutional amendment "is based on our answer to the question: what is marriage?" But the tenets of Chapman's church shouldn't give anyone veto power over civil marriage rights in Iowa. We all have ethical or religious beliefs informing our views on marriage. I may not approve of someone marrying for money, others may not approve of my marrying someone from a different religion, but we don't get to deny heterosexual couples a marriage license because we disapprove of their relationships.

In any event, hundreds of Iowa clergy support marriage equality and have officiated at gay and lesbian weddings since April 2009. Matt Mardis-LeCroy, minister at Plymouth Congregational Church in Des Moines, told legislators yesterday, "Rabbis, imams, pastors, and priests have debated the meaning of marriage for thousands of years. With all due respect, this one is above your pay grade."

The Varnum v Brien ruling made clear that churches would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages, nor would clergy be required to officiate at the ceremonies. Just as Iowa statutes relating to divorce have not forced the Catholic Church to change its doctrine on divorce, granting civil marriage rights to all doesn't restrict anyone's religious views on marriage.

5. Former legislator Danny Carroll of the FAMiLY LEADER, the umbrella organization including the Iowa Family Policy Center: "we reject evangelical Christians being the brunt of name calling, being called bigots because they simply want the chance to vote on what the definition of marriage is and has been for the last 2,000 years."

It's clever for a self-appointed "marriage defender" to put in that qualifier about 2,000 years. That way, Carroll avoids talking about the marriage rules outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): men taking several wives, men being expected to sire a child by a dead brother's widow, men and women instructed to marry only within their own tribal clan.

The fact remains that Carroll and his allies want to impose their religious views on the whole state of Iowa. And this isn't just about the definition of marriage, because House Joint Resolution 6 would also forbid civil unions, domestic partnerships or any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

6. The fuller context of Carroll's statement to the subcommittee hearing deserves to be cited:

"The people that we represent at the Family Leader and the many hundreds and thousands of Iowans who want a chance to vote on this do so with no malice in [their] hearts. In fact, many of those people would be quick to offer an apology to the homosexual community for the way they have been treated over the decades. For the ridicule and at least verbal if not physical abuse that they have been subject to. We reject that, Mr. Chair. Let me repeat: we reject that just as much as we reject evangelical Christians being the brunt of name calling, being called bigots because they simply want the chance to vote on what the definition of marriage is and has been for the last 2,000 years."

Carroll gets bonus points for acknowledging that gays and lesbians are a historically disfavored group, but I'm sure the "homosexual community" would happily forgo any apology if FAMiLY LEADER supporters would just stop trying to take people's rights away.

On a related note, I can't help including this passage from an e-mail Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley sent to supporters yesterday. Technically, it wasn't a talking point for public consumption, but it reflects sentiments like those Carroll shared at the hearing:

Several of us plan to bring a token of Christian love (like a small bag of cookies or other treats) to share with homosexual activists who we'll be encountering Monday. It's time we dispel lies about Christians, by tangibly showing love to people who struggle with homosexuality.

How generous of them. Here, have a cookie on your way to the back of the bus!

By the way, Mr. Hurley, it's people like you who "struggle with homosexuality." You've made it part of your life's work to write your views on homosexuality into the state constitution. People who want to keep discrimination out of the constitution aren't struggling with their orientation, whether it be heterosexual or LGBT.

7. Carroll makes this list one more time by telling lawmakers yesterday: "We are not necessarily asking you to take a position one way or the other on the issue. We are simply asking you to give the people the right to vote."

The wording of House Joint Resolution is clear:

"Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Voting to advance that bill is not a neutral statement about popular sovereignty. It's a deliberate step to deny marriage rights or any form of legal recognition to thousands of Iowans.

8. Democratic State Representative Swaim, explaining his vote for the amendment:

"In my opinion we can trust the citizens of Iowa to study and understand the issues," Swaim said in voting with Republicans. "Iowans are fair, honest and smart. They are up to it. And the bottom line is simply this: The Iowa people are ultimately arbitrators of their own constitution."

I get that Swaim is in a tough spot politically. He won re-election in House district 94 by only 74 votes (less than 1 percent). In his district's three counties, the vote against retaining the Iowa Supreme Court justices was over 60 percent in Wayne and Appanoose, and over 70 percent in Davis.

But whether or not Iowans are fair or smart, we don't put minority rights up to a majority vote in this country. That's why we have a constitution with an equal protection clause.

9. Look at how Representative Hagenow answered a question from Representative Wessel-Kroeschell during the subcommittee hearing:

Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell: Representative Alons and Hagenow, why do you want to deny loving, committed couples like Larry and David the right to visit one another in a nursing home or hospital?
Hagenow: "I certainly don't now of any law in the state of Iowa that precludes someone from visiting in the hospital."

You have to be willfully ignorant not to know that depriving couples of legal recognition wouldn't jeopardize their future ability to visit each other in a hospital or nursing home. Many couples across the country have experienced this pain. Research on hospital procedures has shown this to be a widespread problem.

Later in the hearing, Hagenow offered this amazing statement:

Rep. Chris Hagenow, R-Windsor Heights, conceded the possibility of legal snarls, and said that could be part of a statewide debate.
"I don't think that should stand in the way of having the people of Iowa decide this," said Hagenow.

Liz George had testified to the committee about legal problems she encountered following the death of her partner in 2007. They had been a couple for 21 years, but her partner's family challenged the will. I cannot imagine facing a legal nightmare while coping with a devastating bereavement. Hagenow's an attorney, but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of Iowans being equal under the law. In his view, legal problems for a few people like Liz George shouldn't stop a popular vote from deciding her fate.

10. By approving a constitutional amendment on marriage, legislators will reduce the political pressure on the judiciary.

Although I didn't hear anyone make this argument yesterday, it pops up from time to time. Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, among others, have suggested that allowing Iowans to vote on the definition of marriage will restore the public's trust in the judicial system.

According to this line of analysis, the campaign against retaining three Supreme Court justices grew out of frustration that statehouse Democrats were blocking a vote on a marriage amendment. There's no basis for that revisionist history. Within days of the Varnum v Brien decision, some conservative groups vowed to target the Supreme Court justices who would be on the ballot in 2010.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Iowa GOP would ban civil unions as well as same-sex marriage

desmoinesdem — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:20:51 GMT

Nearly the entire Iowa House Republican caucus is co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in Iowa. The bill was introduced today, although the text of HJR 6 is not yet available on the legislature's official website.

Fifty-six of the 60 Republicans in the Iowa House are listed as sponsors of the bill. No Democrats have signed onto the bill as a sponsor.
Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, is leading the resolution and said he offered it to all Republicans to sign as sponsors as well as some Democrats. Democrats and the four Republicans declined to sign this version, he said.
The four Republicans who declined to sign are Reps Steve Lukan of New Vienna, Peter Cownie of West Des Moines, Scott Raecker of Urbandale and David Tjepkes of Gowrie.

Cownie told the Des Moines Register's Jason Clayworth that he plans to vote for the bill on the House floor, and I assume Lukan, Raecker and Tjepkes will too.

Once upon a time, Republicans pretended they didn't mean to write discrimination into the state constitution, they only wanted to protect a traditional definition of marriage. I'm "shocked, shocked" to learn that Republicans want not only to exclude some couples from civil marriage, but also to foreclose any legal recognition of or protection for same-sex relationships.

That position clearly does not reflect popular opinion in Iowa. Even before the Varnum v Brien ruling, a Hawkeye poll conducted in March 2009 found that 26 percent of Iowans supported same-sex marriage rights and another 28 percent supported civil unions, while just 37 percent opposed any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and 9 percent did not know. An Iowa poll this month by Public Policy Polling did not ask about civil unions but found that 41 percent of respondents supported same-sex marriage rights. In the same poll, 52 percent of respondents said same-sex marriage should not be legal, but presumably a significant portion of that group would back civil unions or some form of legal protection.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has said he will block any marriage amendment from coming to a vote in the upper chamber, so Iowa House approval is probably the end of the road for House Joint Resolution 6 this session. If the GOP wins an Iowa Senate majority in 2012, this kind of amendment would likely pass in 2013. Republicans would have to hold both chambers of the legislature and pass the bill again in 2015 or 2016 in order to get a marriage amendment on the November 2016 ballot. A simple majority of yes votes would be needed to approve the amendment.

One Iowa is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their state representatives and senators immediately. It might be worth mentioning that New Hampshire Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, have decided not to try to repeal same-sex marriage rights this year. The GOP leader of the New Hampshire House, D.J. Bettencourt, has said "social issues must take a backseat" to legislation focused on jobs and the economy.

UPDATE: Alons showed the logical reasoning skills that make him one of Iowa's most clueless legislators when speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday:

"I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states," people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

Justice Cady's state of the judiciary speech thread

desmoinesdem — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:47:32 GMT

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady addresses the Iowa legislature this morning in what will surely be the most-watched ever state of the judiciary speech. Iowa Public Television is carrying the live feed at 10 am, and I'll liveblog after the jump. Cady is the senior justice remaining on the high court, having been appointed by Governor Terry Branstad in 1998. He is also the author of the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. That decision sparked a successful campaign against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker in November. The four remaining justices chose Cady to serve as chief justice until replacements for Ternus, Streit and Baker have been appointed.

So far 61 people have applied for a position on the Iowa Supreme Court. The current list is here, but more applications may come in by the deadline (January 14). So far applicants include 10 women and 51 men from many different towns and cities of the state. Most are in their 40s or 50s. The few applicants in their 30s include both U.S. attorneys appointed by George W. Bush for Iowa (Matt Whitaker and Matt Dummermuth). One Republican state legislator, Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chair Rich Anderson, has applied as well. The Des Moines Register noted that one applicant, University of Iowa law professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, submitted a brief in support of same-sex marriage when the Supreme Court was considering the Varnum v Brien case. Another applicant, Michael Keller, has praised that ruling, which allowed him to marry his partner.

State Court Administrator David Boyd told the Des Moines Register that "he was 'very pleased, and maybe a little surprised' with the quality and number of applicants, given the intense public scrutiny on the court since the election." The state judicial nominating commission "welcomes written comments from the public about the qualifications of any of the applicants." After interviewing the candidates, the judicial nominating commission will send a short list of nine names to Branstad, who will fill the three vacancies.

P.S. This week a report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics summarized the independent expenditures in last year's retention campaign. Supporters of retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker were vastly outspent by groups seeking to oust the justices.

UPDATE: Liveblog starting now after the jump. Iowa Public TV will rebroadcast the speech at 9:30 pm on Wednesday.

THURSDAY UPDATE: House Judiciary Committee Chair Anderson seems to be closing the door on impeachment.

Rep. Rich Anderson, R-Clarinda, said he personally believes that the justices' actions in issuing a ruling that in effect legalized same-sex marriage do not meet the standard for impeachment spelled out in the Iowa Constitution: "misdemeanor or malfeasance in office." The court ruled that an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
He said his gut reaction is that the yet-to-be-filed bill won't make it out of his committee, one of the first steps in the legislative process.
"I don't believe there's any likelihood of impeachment," Anderson said.

I've posted more reactions to Cady's speech from state legislators below.
10:01 Big ovation in legislative chamber.

10:02 Senate President Jack Kibbie very briefly introduces Cady. (Kibbie said publicly in 2009 that he opposed same-sex marriage and would support a constitutional amendment to ban it.)

10:03 Cady starts speaking. Thanks for warm reception. Invites everyone to join judicial branch and him in reception in courtroom following today's remarks.

10:04 17 decades come and gone since Iowa first became territory and state. Hope was that government in each decade would allow us to move forward to brighter future for all Iowans. Pursuit of this hope is collectively told by stories that have emerged from Supreme Court courtroom over the decades; promise of equality in our constitution.

10:05 Stories tell history of our struggles to achieve goals; some are familiar to you, others are not well known but important nevertheless. These stories tell why our government and judicial system serve Iowans so well.

10:06 Last fall I stopped by Winnishiek Co courthouse, met with clerk of court and staff. Since one staffer began working in 1983, workload has soared, but staff numbers remained the same; staff often have to come in early, stay late and come in on weekends.

10:07 This worker was not meaning to complain, just expressing concern that heavy workload would lead to mistakes, affecting quality of service Across state court officers and staff believe in what they do, do it well.

10:08 Story of our ability to deliver justice to Iowans over the decades shows that our job will be done regardless of cards we are dealt, but no doubt that our mission is getting harder and harder to achieve. I fear that deep cuts in resources are beginning to cause damage to our system of justice. Concern about decline in access to justice in Iowa. More and more Iowans with legal problems are forced to wait too long for day in court.

10:09 problems are troublesome for litigants and shake people's confidence in system; growing demand for use of system. Thanks legislature and governor for providing funds last year to prevent further cuts and furloughs. We are grateful for that, but it was just temporary fix, hasn't halted continued erosion of court services.

10:10 In past year number of clerk of court offices forced to operate on part-time basis has increased from 26 to 30. Some offices have to close early. Some other offices work full time but have a close a few hours a week to deal with workload. Judicial rulings are sometimes delayed because of lack of court reporters and staff support.

10:11 Reviewing how we got to this point. Judicial branch had to cut its budget five times, and each time cuts were deep. Unlike many state agencies, judicial branch cuts are almost all operating costs (employees, judges). Almost always have to further reduce workload in response to cuts. End result is staffing levels down 17% in last decade.

10:12 Today Iowa's court system operates w/smaller workforce than it had in 1987. Over same period of time the total number of actions brought by Iowans and businesses has nearly doubled. Courts overrun with work, Iowans pay price in reduced access to justice. Praises strong work ethic of judges, magistrates and court staff, but that can't totally shield Iowans from effects of past decade of budget cuts.

10:13 As we struggle with obstacles, we have moved forward to find innovative ways to improve access to justice. Testing system for electronic filing and retrieval of documents. Would save Iowans money and inconvenience of having to travel to courthouses to do business. Gives judges access to documents as soon as they are filed. If it works and we have adequate funding, we could implement this system across state in five to six years.

10:14 Experimenting with civil justice reform to allow some cases to move forward faster (dedicated business court, alternative dispute resolution services, etc.) Hope to have road map for civil justice reform later this year

10:15 We want legal system that can respond to needs of modern society. Should improve Iowans' access to justice, but these changes alone won't give Iowans all the access to court services that they need. Court employees are essential to administration of justice throughout state.

10:16 We understand state's continuing fiscal difficulties and tough choices, but there are many reasons to bolster court services in these hard times. Recession has increased demand on courts: mortgage foreclosures up 17%, debt collection up 15%, child in need of resources cases up 23%, etc. These have life-altering effects on Iowans, not the time to hand out ration cards for justice.

10:17 Cady talking about treatment for abused and neglected children and youth. Quotes official in Marshalltown: Front-end kids are no longer being served, or if served, not served well. We get those kids later when problems are bigger. Lack of manpower and funding means kids sit in detention or shelter too long waiting for appropriate residential treatment. Seem to have less success when they come back from placement. Long-term effects will show up later.

10:18 Iowa's underfunded mental health system places greater demands on courts. Court staff often spend hours on telephone trying to locate placement for person who has been involuntarily committed. This problem also calls for more resources.

10:19 Iowa's economic health provides another reason for you [legislators] to provide funds for more court services. Studies in CA, FL suggest well-funded court system contributes to economic health. Court delays and closed offices add to the cost of doing business in this state, inhibit business expansion. Vibrant bus community requires vibrant court system.

10:20 We understand that courts must share in pain, but I hope we can all agree that Iowans need justice. Budget request reflects modest 3-year plan to approve Iowans' access to justice. Ask that you give this careful consideration.

10:21 Now addressing challenge that threatens balance of power that protects constitutional rights. Talks about Varnum v Brien case. Says we understood case would receive attention and be subject to close scrutiny. Worked hard on written decision to fully explain our ruling, we understand how Iowans can reach different opinions about the decision. In many ways, public discourse is what was expected.

10:22 The period of time following a decision is what gives shape to tomorrow's understanding; discourse is not new for Iowa, although I doubt it has ever been so strong. Our court, Iowa Supreme Court, has many times decided questions on civil rights that were once controversial. Yet over time those cases have become celebrated part of proud, rich Iowa history of equality for all. (first time speech interrupted by applause--lengthy applause)

10:23 I know not how this debate will end, but I do know our constitution will continue to show us the way, as borne out by our history. Constitutional work by the court on this matter is complete; history will be written one way or the other by your hand and the hand of the people of Iowa.

10:24 To help move forward to write this history, I want to address certain misunderstandings about the role of the court in our system of justice. Hoping his words today will help redirect the path. Wants us to move forward to address concerns about system of selecting judges.

10:25 Iowa has the best method in the nation for selecting its judges. Merit selection must be maintained today to permit us to move forward to a better tomorrow (explains how system works; adopted in 1962 constitutional amendment to minimize influence of politics)

10:26 Focuses on 15-member state judicial nominating commission. Describes how people are appointed to that commission. Some selected by governor, others selected by attorneys. Constitution requires that commissioners be chosen without regard to political affiliation.

10:27 Non-partisan nature of judicial nominating commission has been questioned at times; sometimes does shift from Democrats to Republicans. This is not because lawyers select some members of commission; lawyers select their members on that commission through ballot that doesn't mention party ID.

10:28 Non-lawyers on commission are selected by governor, but even if governor chooses people who share his/her party affiliation doesn't mean that people are chosen because of party affiliation. In 1980s Democrats in Iowa legislature suggested requiring partisan balance on all judicial nominating commissions, but that measure was rejected, and system was left in place.

10:29 Party affiliation doesn't affect commissioners' ability to do job; they care about good government, maintaining Iowa's fair and impartial courts. They have selected most qualified nominees. I have had privilege of chairing this commission in recent years and have seen people come together to nominate best candidates for vacancies on appellate courts.

10:30 Quotes former member of nominating commission from 1990s; he said he may have rooted for the home team but always voted for most qualified candidates.

10:31 What really matters is commitment of each commissioner and governor to spirit of merit selection and goal of maintaining fair and impartial courts. Surveys conducted for US Chamber of Commerce have consistently ranked Iowa judges as most fair and impartial in country. Last year fourth in nation. Academic studies suggest Iowa Supreme Court has become one of the most influential state supreme courts in country

10:32 Other supreme courts often cite our supreme court; Iowans want good government, and our fair and impartial courts are model for this.

[I have to pause the liveblog, will pick it up again later]

UPDATE: I had to step away from my computer during the most interesting part of Cady's speech. From Kay Henderson's excellent liveblog:

Next, Cady directly confronted critics. "In our government, courts are legal institutions, not political institutions," he began. "...Public opinion shifts. The will of the people, followed by the courts, is the will expressed by our law, as constrained by the written principles of the constitution." He got applause for this statement from some. A few Republicans who remained seated applauded.
"Unlike our political institutions, courts serve the law. They serve the law, not the interests of constituents, not the demands of special interest groups and not the electorate's reaction to a specific court decision," Cady said. This got applause, an ovation from some in the room, and some whistles and cheers from the gallery where the public is seated. (Cady added that last phrase - "not the electorate's reaction to a specific court decision" to the prepared text released at 10:30 a.m.)
Next up, Cady's defense of "judicial review" which he described as "well documented." Cady drew applause from supporters in the crowd when he said the words of the constitution constrain all laws that follow.
He talked about the "peculiar province" of the courts, saying it had been settled in 1803 - Marbury v Madison. Cady said in 1849, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its first decision that protected the constitutional rights of an Iowan by invalidating a law passed by the legislature. "This is the very duty this court exercised in the Varnum decision," Cady said, to more applause.
The court has declared acts of the legislature unconstitutional just over 150 times, according to Cady, who added those cases haven't received the attention the Varnum decision did. Cady also cited the recent Citizens United case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which saw the court - via judicial review - invalidate a federal law.
"I hope my remarks this morning will lead to a more accurate and complete understanding of the court's proper constitutional role," Cady said.
He next addressed critics who said the court should have suspended its ruling on Varnum to give the legislature time to react, draft a new law, set up a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Cady said the court hasn't done that since 1883. "As we said in Varnum, our constitution speaks with principle, and so do we," Cady said. He drew out the last phrase of that sentence and his supporters/like-minded people in the crowd stood to applaud.

UPDATE: Radio Iowa got reaction from some state legislators:

State Senator Kent Sorenson, a Republican from Indianola, is among Cady's critics. "He threw a match on the tinder box, in my opinion," Sorenson said after the speech. "...I think he made a foolish mistake by addressing this issue in front of the chamber and I wouldn't have done it if I was him."
Three rookie Republicans in the Iowa House who are drafting articles of impeachment refused to comment after the speech. Sorenson suggests impeachment is more rather than less likely after Cady's remarks this morning.
"I would have let sleeping dogs lie," Sorenson said. "But obviously he wanted to throw it out there for everybody and I think he made a grave mistake."
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal wore a sticker that said, "Support our Courts" during the address. "I thought it was a great speech," Gronstal said. "I thought it was something that corrected some of the misperceptions amongst the public about the role of the courts and what their job is."
House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, a Republican from Hiawatha who is an attorney, isn't sure what impact Cady's speech may have on the move to impeach Cady and the other justices.
"I thought his speech was thoughtful. I thought it was good," Paulsen told reporters immediately after Cady's address. "He stood up for his branch of government. That's his job."

James Q. Lynch collected these reactions:

"I think he threw a match on a tinderbox," said Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, who remained seated when other lawmakers stood at the conclusion of Cady's speech. He thought it was a "foolish mistake" to bring up the Varnum v. Brien decision.
"Yesterday, I thought talk of impeachment was premature, but after today, I have to rethink that," Sorenson said.
Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, said Cady did nothing to defuse the impeachment effort that "is kind of brewing now about this whole decision."
"We'll just have to see what transpires and how vocal people will become across the state," he said.
One of those who has been vocal on the issue, Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leaders, said there's still time for the justices to resign. If they don't, he added, "some legislators will take a hard look at whether there are grounds for impeachment."[...]
Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa, was disappointed Cady showed such little understanding of the justices' role under the Constitution.
Although it is the court's responsibility "to strike down a law that they believe to be unconstitutional," Chelgren said the voters are the "final arbiters."
"Therefore, the very effect of getting rid of three Supreme Court justices is the essence of our Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold and protect just as I have," he said.
[...]
While he gave Cady high marks for his "assessment of the courts and their roles as a determiner of constitutionality," House Judiciary Chairman Rich Anderson, R-Clarinda, said that with respect to the Varnum case, "there is a difference of opinion even in the courts regarding that issue."
"The question of constitutionality on any issue is often in the eye of the beholder," he said. "Because you see high-level courts reaching different opinions ... there remains a division in the courts and in the people and that division is reality and we as policymakers have to work with that."

And the Des Moines Register's Grant Schulte collected more quotable quotes:

Some Republicans in the Legislature said Cady's remarks were condescending. Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, said the chief justice "came in here with a pompous, arrogant attitude and tried to give the Legislature a history lesson."
"You come in here and you make a speech like that - well, you saw the reaction," Sorenson said. "I don't think it was received very well when he started going down that road."
Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, said Cady "just poured a five-gallon can of gasoline on the fire" - a line that was echoed by other Republican lawmakers.
Bartz said Cady acted in a political manner when he waved to supporters in the public balconies after his speech and when he mentioned the marriage ruling.
"I think he frankly should have been silent on the decision," Bartz said. "Sometimes you have to leave the elephant stand in the room and just not discuss it."

UPDATE: Mr. desmoinesdem declared this to be Kathie Obradovich's worst column ever:

Cady delivers civics lesson but lacks emotional appeal [...]
But the retention election seems to have entrenched Iowans' views - you could almost hear the creak of the door closing on an empty barn. It will take a sustained effort over time to shift Iowans' understanding of the court's responsibility and authority. [...]
Civics lessons and legal history answer some questions about why the court acted as it did in voiding Iowa's marriage law without further input from lawmakers. But what Cady failed to address was the emotional argument that court critics like Bob Vander Plaats have used to great effect: That justices are elitist, set apart from the public and bent on imposing their own warped moral code on the rest of us.
Those class-war arguments will continue to make headway until Cady and those who support merit selection find a way to humanize their arguments. Pointing to the acceptance over time of civil-rights rulings does little today for those who fear the erosion of the nation's moral bedrock.

So now it's not enough for the chief justice of the Supreme Court to express a sound legal argument--he has to sell himself like an elected official, hitting the right emotional touchstones to persuade the voters?

Events coming up during the next two weeks

desmoinesdem — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:55:24 GMT

This week is a big one in Iowa politics, with the state legislature's 2011 session starting Monday and Terry Branstad's inauguration for a fifth term as governor on Friday. Several non-profits are organizing members and supporters to lobby legislators as well. Event details are after the jump.

One of my new year's resolutions is to post event calendars regularly at Bleeding Heartland. Activists and politicians can help by sending your event notices to me: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please post a comment if you know of something I've left out.
Monday, January 10

The Iowa legislature's 2011 session begins.

Tuesday, January 11

Governor Chet Culver gives his final Condition of the State address to the Iowa House and Senate.

One Iowa is organizing Freedom to Marry Day at the capitol.

With the start of Iowa's legislative session, we have our work cut out for us. To have the impact we need, we aim to have 500 pro-equality Iowans at the Capitol on January 11.
Anti-equality forces are using the November election results to say Iowans don't want marriage equality. They are drawing up plans to amend our constitution to prohibit the freedom to marry. We must show our legislators and new governor that we stand for the freedom to marry.
We'll start the day at the Capitol for Gov. Culver's final State of the State address, where we can thank him for his leadership and support of LGBT issues. After lunch ($10 requested donation at the door) and a quick training session, we'll talk to legislators about the importance of freedom for all Iowans.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa is co-hosting an exhibit through January 23 at the State Historical Building, 600 E Locust St:

The exhibit, "No Victory Ever Stays Won: 90 Years of Protecting Liberty," highlights ACLU milestones over the last nine decades and illustrates the organization's contributions to defending freedoms of Americans. The exhibit is on display now through Jan. 23, 2011, at the State Historical Museum, 600 E. Locust Street in Des Moines. Museum hours are 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday and noon-4:30 p.m. Sunday. Visit www.iowahistory.org or call 515-281-5111 for more information. Admission is free.
"Iowa has a long and storied history regarding civil liberties issues and we are very pleased to co-host this traveling exhibit with the ACLU of Iowa," Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs Director Cyndi Pederson said. "I encourage Iowans to visit the museum and learn more about the history behind these issues not only as they pertain to Iowa, but to the entire country as well."
The exhibit includes information about Iowa's landmark 1969 U.S. Supreme Court student rights case, Tinker v. The Des Moines Independent Schools, and outlines ACLU's work on a wide range of issues, including racial segregation, the right to vote, free speech and privacy on the Internet, human rights, reproductive freedoms and more.

Wednesday, January 12

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady will deliver the annual State of Judiciary speech at the capitol. Justice Not Politics, Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund, and other like-minded organizations urge Iowans to attend Cady's speech.

Please arrive at the Capitol cafeteria no later than 8:30AM. The first supporters to arrive will fill in the gallery seats. The remaining supporters will show their support of Iowa's courts in the Capitol rotunda.
To RSVP to the event, please log onto: http://www.justicenotpolitics....

Friday, January 14

Terry Branstad will be inaugurated as governor and will probably sign some bad directives like this one.

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

The 5th annual Innovation and Leadership Conference will be held on Friday, January 14, at the College of Business and Public Administration, Aliber Hall, Drake University. The conference theme is "Food Policy, Social Justice, Hunger and Sustainability-A Cross-National Perspective," and will highlight the complex inter-relations between the methods of food production, energy consumption, environmental sustainability, healthy eating and the competing philosophies on how best to enhance and protect today's global food systems. The conference represents a balanced approach to the pros and cons associated with topics as varied as how food systems effect our health and environment, Iowa's role in feeding the world-from the farmer's perspective-to food security and justice issues and the competing technological, scientific and global economic and political issues which effect food and agricultural policy. Check-in begins at 8:30 am, first floor, Aliber Hall. The registration fee is $30 payable by check or cash the day of the conference which covers attendance, conference materials, plus lunch. For more information (included session time/topics) and to secure a seat for the day through on-line registration, please visit our website: www.cbpa.drake.edu/cps

Saturday, January 15

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

The Center on Sustainable Communities (COSC) presents two full-day Affordable Green Building Training workshops in Corning on Saturday, Jan. 15th and Saturday, Jan 29. The information-rich sessions cover 6 topics that are essential for any building professional looking to gain a comprehensive understanding of green building best practices. Visit icosc.com for details and register today by contacting Leslie Berckes at Leslie@icosc.com or 515-707-2787. Join COSC at Practical Farmers of Iowa Annual Conference in Marshalltown Jan. 7-8 and the Build-it-Right seminar in Fort Dodge on Jan. 22nd. Looking forward, please mark your calendars for COSC connects on Feb. 24th at the Des Moines Social Club and Des Moines metro's Environmental Impact Awards Ceremony at the Des Moines Botanical Center on Wednesday, May 18th from 11:30am-1:30pm. More info at icosc.com

Monday, January 17

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

Weatherization Training Day
Learn a useful skill and cut the carbon on MLK Day of Service! Iowa Interfaith Power & Light teams up with Green Iowa AmeriCorps and the Wesley Foundation on the MLK Day of Service on Monday, January 17 to learn how to weatherize homes in Cedar Falls. Meet at the Wesley Foundation (2422 College, Cedar Falls) at 9 AM to be trained before we go out in teams to weatherize selected local homes. All skill levels welcome. Done by 4pm. Bring a sack lunch. Read more and register online at http://iowaipl.org/calendar.html by Jan 15. For more information contact Sarah at coolcongregations@iowaipl.org

Tuesday, January 18

A special election will be held in Iowa Senate district 35 to choose Larry Noble's replacement. The candidates are Republican Jack Whitver and Democrat John Calhoun.

Deadline to RSVP for the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa's Crossroads event on January 21: Immigration Issues in the 2011 Iowa Legislature (see below).

Wednesday, January 19

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

Sierra Club Program: Democracy Crisis
Please join us on Wednesday, January 19, 7 p.m., at Northwest Community Center, 51st Street and Franklin Avenue in Des Moines, for a presentation entitled, Democracy Crisis-a presentation about how corporations have procured much legal power, gaining more rights than human citizens, and are using those rights to the detriment of individuals, communities and our natural environment. The presentation is authored by Riki Ott, a PhD toxicologist and marine biologist who was living and working in Cordoba, AK at the time of the Valdez spill. Marybeth Gardam will be giving this presentation representing WILPF (Women's International League for Peace & Freedom... www.wilpf.org) on the national Steering Committee for Move To Amend (www.MoveToAmend.org) and is a member of the Des Moines branch of WILPF, which has been active on environmental, peace and justice issues since the 1960s. Contact Jane at 223-5047 or jrclark@radiks.net for more information about the program.

Friday, January 21

The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa is holding a Crossroads luncheon about "Immigration Issues in the 2011 Iowa Legislature." Presenters: Tom Chapman, Executive Director, Iowa Catholic Conference; Jay Byers, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Greater Des Moines Partnership. The event runs from 11:45 am to 1 pm at Plymouth Congregational Church, Des Moines (42nd Street & Ingersoll Ave). Cost: $10. Please RSVP by calling 515-279-8715 or email info@interfaithallianceiowa.org by Tuesday, January 18.

The Iowa Immigration Education Coalition is holding a member training summit and webinar from 1:30 to 4:30 pm at DeWaay Capital Mgmt. Conference Center, 13001 University Avenue, Clive. To RSVP: Geofrey Fischer, Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, PO Box 506, Des Moines, Iowa 50302 (515) 471 - 8058
geof@iowaimmigrationeducation.org

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

How to Draw Children Back into Nature - ICEC Winter Solstice
January 21-23, Moravia
Please join us for Winter Solstice 2011 at Honey Creek Resort in Moravia (on Lake Rathbun). This year's conference focuses on reconnecting children with nature. For more information and to register: https://docs.google.com/filevi...
Scholarship form may be found at:
https://docs.google.com/filevi...
If you have any problems downloading the registration brochure please contact Heather at adminicec@mchsi.com.

Gronstal re-elected leader and other Iowa Senate news

desmoinesdem — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:00:55 GMT

The Iowa Senate Democratic caucus on November 14 re-elected Mike Gronstal as majority leader and Jack Kibbie as Senate president. Five senators will serve as assistant majority leaders: Joe Bolkcom of Iowa City, Bill Dotzler of Waterloo, Wally Horn of Cedar Rapids, Amanda Ragan of Mason City, and Steve Sodders of State Center. Linn County Supervisor Brent Oleson got Iowa Republicans excited on Saturday by tweeting that Horn would challenge Gronstal, but according to this Des Moines Register report by Jennifer Jacobs, "No one mounted a challenge for either leadership role, several senators said."

More Iowa Senate news is after the jump.
Gronstal was the guest on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program over the weekend (video and full transcript here). He repeated that he will not allow a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He predicted future elections will bring "increased political activity on the side of retaining judges," because of the huge amount spent to convince Iowans to oust three Supreme Court justices this year. He also opposed changing the judicial selection process:

Gronstal: I don't believe the selection process should be changed. I'm certainly willing to look at that but I can remember democrats in the 80s when Terry Branstad was governor and when we had had republican governors for decades in this state I remember democrats complaining that the judicial nominating system was biased in favor of republicans and only republican names got advanced for judgeships. So, I remember the same criticism from the other side. Here is what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says, they say we have one of the best systems of courts in the country. We have competent judges in charge, not influenced by political pressures and that that is good. They rate our state very highly from a business perspective as to our courts. That is -- I think we have been well served by the current system.

Gronstal interpreted the election results as a message from voters to "get people back to work" and promised to work with Governor-elect Terry Branstad to find more ways to cut the budget. He sounded open to means-testing the state's program for four-year-old preschoolers:

Henderson: So, for parents who have a child in preschool this year what is your advice to them?
Gronstal: I think we're certainly willing to look at what Governor Branstad has recommended. We also hope he'll listen to some of the things that we have heard people say are important. So, I think a wholesale walking away from a commitment to early childhood education -- I think that is probably a mistake. But we're open to talking with the governor-elect about what road he wants to go down in that respect.

Means-testing the preschool program could be a reasonable compromise, as long as the income level isn't set too low. A lot of families making above the median income in Iowa would be hard-pressed to come up with $500 to $700 per month for preschool costs. If too many people are forced to keep their four-year-olds out of preschool, some preschools now operating may have to close.

Gronstal also said Democrats were open to Branstad's ideas on national board certification for teacher quality. Regarding economic development efforts, he didn't rule out changing the structure of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, but said policies should focus on "main street" efforts and not simply "let's go chase some big company." He also said Iowa needs to stay "at the forefront of renewable energy in this state and clean energy and green energy," but it doesn't matter whether that program is called the Power Fund (a Democratic initiative Republicans want to eliminate) or something else.

On Iowa Press, Gronstal spoke at length about how Democrats worked with Branstad when he was governor before, particularly in the area of education. He said Democrats would consider Republican-proposed spending reductions, if those are "real cuts that save the state money and don't jeopardize some of the important things we do in this state." He said there was "a ton of common ground" and is not inclined to block Branstad's appointments unless there's a strong policy reason that the nominee is inappropriate. But it sounds like Senate Democrats will draw a line in the sand regarding children's health care coverage.

Of course we're going to stand in opposition if he's got some really dumb ideas. If he's got ideas that we don't think make sense or that we don't think are good for Iowa, if he's going to try and take healthcare coverage away from children in this state we will stand in his way every way we can. But the vast majority of the stuff the legislature deals with is the kind of stuff that you sit down and you work out your differences over. We worked out our differences with Governor Branstad in 1992 over healthcare and in the end we preserved access to healthcare coverage in this state. We will do that again. We will work with him in good faith.

Gronstal dodged a question about whether he plans to run for governor in 2014, joking that he's ready to announce his campaign for re-election to the Iowa Senate in 2012. He saved the best joke for the end of the show:

Henderson: We haven't much time left, you used to have a mustache, Terry Branstad has a mustache, will you grow a Gronstache in support of the new governor?
Gronstal: Um, I started growing my mustache when I was eighteen years old and graduated from high school. I did it to look older. I realized five or six years ago it was working way too well.

The budget negotiations during the 2011 legislative session will be fascinating. I can see Branstad being willing to hash out a deal with Gronstal, but a bunch of the Iowa House Republicans and a handful in the Senate caucus won't want to give any ground.

While Gronstal is determined to block any full Senate vote on a marriage amendment, it's possible a Senate committee could pass the measure:

Some Democratic senators either oppose gay marriage or at least would like to give Iowans the opportunity to vote on changing the state Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Kibbie is one of those senators. He said Sunday that if the House passes a resolution calling for a marriage amendment, leaders of Senate committees might decide to take action on it.
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Kibbie said.

Recounts in Senate districts 13 and 47 will begin this week. Assuming no change in the results, Democrats will hold a 26-23 majority, pending the results from a special election in Senate district 48. Any day now Governor Chet Culver will set a date for that special election, and the vote must be held within 40 days of Culver's announcement. Republicans announced their candidate, Montgomery County Auditor Joni Ernst, the day Lieutenant Governor-elect Kim Reynolds officially resigned from the seat. I agree with the Move Iowa Forward blog:

As soon as Democrats knew that she was Branstad's choice for his second-in-command we should've been building contingency plans assuming the worst-possible outcome on election day. We should have had a strong and popular Democrat from that district ready to announce his or her candidacy the minute Reynolds resigned. It would be a tough race, no doubt about it. After losing so badly on election day it wouldn't exactly be the smartest thing to assume we could easily win a single race like this only two months later. The district has 10,444 registered Democrats, 15,257 Republicans and 14,306 no-party voters as of November 1.
In 2008 Reynolds won her race against Democrat Ruth Smith with 14,274 votes to 11,653 votes (about 53% to 43% with Independent candidate getting about 4% of the vote). In 2004 Jeff Angelo won with 54% of the vote to the Democrat's 46% (14,981 votes to 12,776 votes). With a strong enough candidate and a very strong GOTV effort this race is entirely winnable.
Instead on the day Reynolds announced her registration her apparent successor announced her candidacy. Joni Ernst is currently the Montgomery County Auditor and has been for the past 6 years. Where were the Democrats on Friday? Nowhere to be found. With Friday's announcement Governor Culver had 5 days to declare the date of the district's special election and it must occur within the next 40 days. That means that before Christmas this election will be happening. Democrats need to get their act together and get a strong candidate on the ground. Don't just concede.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.