The Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee voted unanimously today to hold a “straw poll” fundraiser next August, as has occurred every year before the Iowa caucuses since 1979. The date and location will be announced later; the three most likely venues are the Iowa State University campus in Ames, the Farm Progress Show in Boone, and the State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.

I’ve enclosed the official Iowa GOP statement after the jump. Note that it identifies former Republican presidential nominees George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney as past winners of the straw poll, but does not mention Michele Bachmann, who won the 2011 straw poll and went on to finish fifth on caucus night. O. Kay Henderson posted the audio from the committee deliberations and vote. State party chair Jeff Kaufmann emphasized that Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus is strongly supportive of Iowa’s first in the nation status, and said the straw poll will not jeopardize that role.

Shortly after the 2012 presidential election, Governor Terry Branstad declared that “the straw poll has outlived its usefulness.” That’s easy for him to say when he is able to raise millions of dollars through other events. There’s no way the Iowa GOP would fail to hold some kind of statewide fundraiser featuring as many presidential candidates as possible. Continuing the straw poll element will increase the national media’s interest in the event.

Speaking to State Central Committee members after today’s vote, Kaufmann thanked Branstad, Senator Chuck Grassley, and Representative Steve King for their feedback on the straw poll. He added that Branstad had offered to help the party secure presidential candidates’ participation if the straw poll continues. Some analysts have speculated that certain candidates would skip the fundraiser, either because the event is seen to skew toward social conservative activists, or simply to save money. (Texas Governor Rick Perry joined the presidential race shortly after the Ames straw poll.) Kaufmann said today that if some candidates decide not to participate, “I can guarantee that RPI will maintain its strict neutrality policy whether or not that candidate attended the Straw Poll or not.”

During today’s meeting, several State Central Committee members praised the straw poll’s role in giving every presidential candidate, not just well-funded ones, an opportunity to address activists from all over Iowa. A few also favorably cited the straw poll’s function in “winnowing the field.” Sam Brownback ended his presidential campaign soon after the 2007 straw poll, and Tim Pawlenty did the same soon after finishing a distant third at the 2011 event. I suspect that this year, presidential candidates will not invest as much money in winning the straw poll, nor will they over-react to a less than stellar showing. Bachmann started fading almost immediately after winning the 2011 straw poll. By the time the Iowa caucuses rolled around, Republicans had cycled through three more front-runners (Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich), before Rick Santorum surged to finish in a near-tie with Romney and Ron Paul. According to some reports, Pawlenty regretted dropping out of that race so early.

Any comments about the next Republican presidential campaign are welcome in this thread.

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

After an unusually dry December, most of Iowa finally got a decent blanket of snow this week. Meanwhile, a classic winter activity became the unlikely center of a public policy controversy. The Dubuque City Council moved to prohibit sledding at 48 out of 50 city parks, generating some national media coverage and debate over whether city officials over-reacted to worries about litigation.

Contrary to the exaggerated claims of some authors, no city has banned or outlawed sledding within its jurisdiction. Iowans in Dubuque and elsewhere are free to sled on private property and on some public land. The “ban” applies only to certain public parks.

That said, I agree with those who say Dubuque leaders went way too far and set the penalty for unauthorized sledding too high at $750. In fact, City Council member David Resnick was probably right when he warned, “Crowding all [these] sledders into two areas is actually increasing the safety hazard and I don’t think we should limit our potential [liability] by increasing the safety hazard for kids.” I hope the controversy leads to higher turnout in the next Dubuque local election.

According to Katie Wiedemann’s report for KCRG-TV, local leaders say unhappy Dubuque residents should talk to state lawmakers:

“Iowa law protects cities from liability in the event someone gets hurt on city property while biking, skating or skateboarding. But there’s no protection if someone gets hurt while sledding. Some lawmakers attempted to fix that during the 2013 legislative session, but the bill failed.”

However, Iowa Association for Justice Executive Director Brad Lint argued in today’s Des Moines Register that “the city already enjoys fairly broad liability immunity under Iowa law.” After the jump I’ve enclosed excerpts from Lint’s op-ed column, which also addresses broader issues such as unwarranted fear of litigation and groups “begging” Iowa legislators “for protection from the often nonexistent lawsuits in their fields.” As one Bleeding Heartland reader suggested privately to me this week,

Hopefully people will eventually see the sledding thing for what it is…another cynical attempt by the insurance industry to use people to twist the arms of their legislators to exempt the insurers from paying claims even in cases of negligence….

P.S.- Sledding is a common cause of serious childhood injuries during the winter. I know someone whose son nearly lost an eye and developed a life-threatening infection behind his eye socket after a sledding accident in her own backyard. I love sledding almost as much as my kids do, but keep these safety tips in mind when you play in the snow.

Today the U.S. House of Representatives approved by 266 votes to 153 (roll call) a bill to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. As expected, Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voted for the bill. Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was one of 28 Democrats who also supported the bill. Laura Barron-Lopez and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

The vote marked the 10th time the House has voted to authorize the Keystone pipeline in the last four years, and the third time in sixth months.

Loebsack has not supported all of those bills, but he voted for several of the Keystone XL measures, most recently in November. In a statement I’ve posted after the jump, Loebsack explained that “environmental concerns are important,” but he came down in favor of the pipeline because of “the infrastructure jobs that will be created.”

In the comments to yesterday’s post on Loebsack joining a Republican effort to roll back financial regulations, Bleeding Heartland user ontheright asked whether the five-term Democrat might face a primary challenge from the left. I don’t expect that to happen, because for reasons I don’t entirely understand, Johnson County liberals never hold Loebsack accountable for his bad votes on Republican bills, no matter how disappointed they may be. In this case, people will forgive the vote because several Iowa labor unions want the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, or because the White House has said President Barack Obama will veto the bill. Next week or next month, it will be another disappointing vote by Loebsack, and another excuse.

The veto threat is important because for now, Keystone XL backers lack the two-thirds majority needed to over-ride a presidential veto in the U.S. House. The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to pass the Keystone bill next week. While there are enough Democrats in favor to cross the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster, there are not enough to provide 67 Senate votes to over-ride a veto on this issue.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. King released a video statement on today’s vote.

House Republicans tried yesterday to pass a package of eleven bills that would roll back one or more parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

The measure – one of the first to be considered in the new Congress – was brought up under a fast-track procedure typically considered for noncontroversial legislation that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. But Democratic opposition led to its defeat, by a vote of 276-146.

After the jump I’ve posted the floor speech by Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who laid out the Democratic case against passing this bill. He pointed out its substantive flaws and argued against a process that allowed such a complex bill to be brought to the floor in 24 hours, outside “regular order.”

The roll call shows that not only did all three Iowa Republicans vote for this bill, Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 35 Democrats who supported it too. On social media I’ve seen some confused or angry Iowa Democrats ask why Loebsack would vote for such a bad bill. Although he may agree with its content, I would guess that he mostly wanted to protect himself against future campaign attacks. (Political considerations have pushed Loebsack to vote for many bad Republican bills.) Even if he agrees with rolling back Dodd-Frank reforms, though, Loebsack should not have gone along with rushing it through on the second day of the new Congressional session. Legislation this complicated and far-reaching should be debated and marked up in committee first.

Democrats who aren’t happy with Loebsack’s vote should be sure to let him know. Unfortunately, I anticipate many votes like this one to follow.

Joni Ernst was sworn in yesterday (twice) as Iowa’s first new U.S. senator in 30 years. You can view the ceremonial repeat swearing in on KCCI’s website. Vice President Joe Biden complimented Ernst on her “great victory”. He also made an inappropriate comment to one of her daughters. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham gave Ernst a livestock castration device mounted on a plaque engraved with the words, “MAKE ‘EM SQUEAL, JONI!”

Ernst is the first woman ever to represent Iowa in Congress, and while I think many women who came before her were more worthy of the honor, it’s good that the young generation will not grow up wondering whether Iowans would ever elect a woman to high office.

I’d been looking forward to see how Ernst would set the tone on her first day in the Senate. For the last two months, she has been dodging interviews–sorry, “keeping a low profile.” She hired staff and made time for her first foreign junket (a trip to Israel bankrolled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), but she has said little of substance about any current events. Watching Ernst’s first official remarks after being sworn in, I felt disappointed to hear a rehash of her stump speech. In two months she could have come up with something more than “it is certainly a long way from Red Oak to Washington, D.C” and “As a mother, soldier and independent voice [….]” I would like to know whether she has specific goals and legislation she wants to help pass. Instead, we got more vague talk about the “Iowa Way,” “working with our neighbors to find solutions to the many problems we face.” Ernst plans to visit all 99 counties every year. I hope at those town-hall events, Iowans will press for real comments about real issues.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. After the jump I’ve enclosed the full transcript of Ernst’s video remarks yesterday, a list of her key staff hires, and excerpts from her recent interview with Kathie Obradovich. Ernst is “anxious to get to work.” I would advise her not to miss a single hearing of any of the four committees to which she has been assigned (Agriculture, Armed Services, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs). Her campaign’s attacks Bruce Braley set the standard: missing a committee meeting = not doing your job and not caring about people.

Republican John Kooiker easily won today’s special election in Iowa House district 4, which covers most of Sioux County in northwest Iowa (scroll down this page for a map). Unofficial results published on the Sioux County website indicate that Kooiker received 2,064 votes to 456 for Democrat John Buntsma. I was surprised to see that Dennis Wright, a Republican former county supervisor, managed 840 votes (about a quarter of all votes cast) as a write-in candidate. That’s a huge number of votes for a write-in, especially in a low-turnout special election. Wright should seriously consider challenging Kooiker in the 2016 GOP primary to represent House district 4.

Kooiker will succeed longtime conservative stalwart Dwayne Alons, who passed away in November shortly after being re-elected to a ninth term in the Iowa House.

House district 4 is the safest legislative district in the state for the GOP, with roughly nine times as many registered Republicans as Democrats. I admire Buntsma for making sure voters would have a choice, even in a hopeless district for a Democrat.  

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives re-elected John Boehner as speaker a few minutes ago, as Republican insurgents fell short of forcing a second ballot. Before the vote, fifteen House Republicans including Iowa’s own Steve King (IA-04) had publicly said they would not support Boehner. In the end, 25 Republicans voted either “present” or for other speaker candidates. If all 435 House members had been at the Capitol, Boehner could have afforded to lose up to 28 Republican votes and still be elected on the first ballot. But the speaker only needs a majority of those present in the chamber, and according to Pete Kasperowicz of The Blaze, “a dozen or more” Democrats were expected to be absent while attending former New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s funeral.

The more Democrats who don’t show up, the harder it will be to stop Boehner from getting a majority, and GOP defections will likely have to get to the mid-30s to force a second vote.

 

I was surprised when King nominated Florida Republican Dan Webster for speaker this morning. I had assumed he would support his longtime ally Louis Gohmert of Texas. I was also surprised when newly-elected Representative Rod Blum (IA-01) voted for Webster. Freshmen have more to lose if they get on leadership’s bad side, and Blum has incentive to act like a moderate, since he represents a Democratic-leaning district.

I give King and Blum credit for standing up to be counted. Various reports estimated that as many as 50 House Republicans might have voted against Boehner if House rules had allowed a secret ballot instead of a roll call in alphabetical order. If you don’t have the courage to say you’re unhappy with your party’s leader, you don’t belong in Congress.

As expected, newly-elected Iowa Republican David Young (IA-03) voted for Boehner. He got tons of help from the National Republican Congressional Committee in last year’s general election campaign, and he landed a seat on the House Appropriations Committee (not common for a freshman). Young has repeatedly promised to be a “voice at the table” for Iowa, not an uncompromising conservative. I’m already seeing some right-wingers complain on social media about today’s vote. Pottawattamie County GOP leaders had urged Young not to support Boehner for speaker. This is just the first of several high-profile votes that will likely fuel a 2016 primary challenge from the right in IA-03.

The lone Iowa Democrat in Congress, Dave Loebsack (IA-02), voted for Nancy Pelosi as House speaker, as did most of the House Democratic caucus.

I will update this post as needed with comments from the Iowans in Congress. Excerpts from King’s case against Boehner are after the jump. The two men have long clashed over the way King talks about undocumented immigrants, but immigration policy wasn’t King’s only beef with Boehner.

UPDATE: Added comments from Blum, Loebsack, and the Iowa Democratic Party below.

SECOND UPDATE: Chris Moody of CNN quoted Blum as saying, “I didn’t sleep much last night. Did a lot of soul searching. I’m at peace with myself.” I hope so, because Boehner is already punishing Republicans who voted against him as speaker. Today’s vote probably will not help Blum deliver for his district.

Iowa is already one of the top states for wind power and could become one of the country’s solar power leaders as well. Unfortunately, Governor Terry Branstad has a mixed record on promoting alternative energy. On the plus side, Branstad has praised “tremendous potential for growth in solar energy.” He has signed bipartisan legislation to provide state income tax credits for renewable energy, including a bill last spring that tripled the annual amount of solar tax credits in Iowa.

On the other hand, last year the Branstad administration “surrendered a $1 million grant designed to make Iowa a nationwide leader in solar energy after electric utilities lobbied for major changes,” Ryan Foley reported for the Associated Press. You can view what that grant might have accomplished here. After the jump I’ve enclosed excerpts from Foley’s report on the e-mail correspondence.

Now we find out that last month the Iowa Economic Development Authority quietly sacked Paritosh Kasotia as leader of the state energy office. The Associated Press reported that Kasotia was “informed of her ouster Dec. 8 and stopped working the same day.”

Colleagues said Kasotia was not given an explanation for the termination, which came days after she returned from a national conference. An expert on alternative energy and energy efficiency, Kasotia oversaw tens of millions of dollars in funding for state and federal programs during her five-year state tenure. […]

Kasotia, 32, also became active in the National Association of State Energy Officials and served on the advisory council of the Iowa Energy Center at Iowa State University.

Gary Steinke, who served with Kasotia on the advisory council, called her a “national leader in alternative energy.”

“My reaction is that I’m shocked and disappointed,” said Steinke, president of the Iowa Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. “She brought a wealth of knowledge and information to the advisory council and she will be sorely missed.”

Last year, Kasotia helped land a competitive $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to make Iowa a leader in solar energy. Environmentalists said the grant would cut costs and regulations to speed solar adoption. Branstad had written a letter in support. But state officials ended up giving up the grant after utility lobbyists complained they had not been consulted and objected to the grant’s scope.

The move was seen as an embarrassment to the energy office, which started meeting routinely with representatives from utilities such as Alliant Energy and MidAmerican to get input on grant applications.

I sought comment from the governor’s office on why Kasotia was fired. Governor Branstad’s spokesman Jimmy Centers responded, “Iowa law prevents our office from commenting on personnel matters. It’s important to note that state agencies, not the governor’s office, handle personnel matters within their departments.”

Raise your hand if you think Iowa Economic Development Authority Director Debi Durham would fire a senior official in her department without running it by the governor’s office.

Incidentally, Kasotia was a merit employee in the Office of Energy Independence under Governor Chet Culver. But when the Branstad administration restructured the office and assigned it to Durham’s agency, Kasotia’s job as team leader became an “at will” position. Democrats have criticized the governor’s policy of making some 350 state employees at will, because those people can be fired for any reason or no reason. In addition, at will employees may be replaced without advertising the job. Senior officials in the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals have challenged their change in job status, and the U.S. Department of Labor had to intervene to block the Iowa Workforce Development director’s attempt to make that agency’s chief administrative law judge an at will employee.

Someone with as much knowledge and expertise as Kasotia should not be shown the door without a valid reason. Branstad may be be a huge cheerleader for Durham, but when Iowa state senators consider whether to confirm her for another term as Iowa’s top economic development official, they should question her about Kasotia’s firing.

P.S.- Durham’s confirmation hearing could be one of the most contentious during the upcoming legislative session. Democratic lawmakers will also challenge Durham on why she committed Iowa to more than $100 million in unnecessary state tax incentives for one foreign-owned corporation. They may also ask why she has taken several annual bonuses to put her total compensation well above the salary cap defined by state law.

P.P.S.- Kasotia’s ouster makes me more concerned that the Iowa Utilities Board (now run entirely by Branstad appointees) will take administrative steps to overturn a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling, which went against utility companies’ interests.

UPDATE: Added portions of the Des Moines Register’s January 6 editorial after the jump.

SECOND UPDATE: Des Moines Cityview’s Civic Skinny column discussed the firing as well. Scroll down for excerpts.

THIRD UPDATE: Added Governor Branstad’s latest comments below.

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

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo passed away on New Year’s Day. He was a hero to many liberal Democrats during the 1980s, thanks to the policies he promoted in New York and especially his legendary keynote address to the 1984 Democratic National Convention. I’ve posted the video after the jump, along with some excerpts from the full text and from obituaries. It has been ranked the 11th best American political speech of the 20th century.

I was unable to watch Cuomo’s keynote live, because I spent July 1984 at summer camp. But listening to it this week brought back many emotions. Liberals felt discouraged and embattled during the Reagan years. Cuomo gave voice to those frustrations. He focused on economic inequality in particular: “There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don’t see, in the places that you don’t visit in your shining city. In fact, Mr. President […] you ought to know that this nation is more a tale of two cities than it is just a shining city on a hill.” Cuomo’s words speak to me more than anything I’ve ever heard from Barack Obama, including the “Yes We Can” speech and his vaunted 2004 DNC address.  

By the way, this line from Cuomo’s speech is as true now as it was 30 years ago: “Now we’re proud of this diversity as Democrats. We’re grateful for it. We don’t have to manufacture it the way the Republicans will next month in Dallas, by propping up mannequin delegates on the convention floor.”

Only on reading Cuomo’s obituaries did I learn that in September 1984, he spoke at Notre Dame University and explained why a devout Catholic could support a woman’s legal right to an abortion. The full transcript from that speech is here. I’ve posted excerpts below.

Former Iowa Lieutenant Governor Art Neu passed away on January 2. After Governor Bob Ray and Congressman Jim Leach, Neu was Iowa’s most prominent moderate Republican of the 1970s and 1980s. I enclose below a few comments on his passing.

Having been raised by a “Rockefeller Republican,” I remember when moderates were a real force within the Iowa GOP. Now there is not a single pro-choice Republican in our state’s legislature, and only a handful of elected Iowa GOP officials accept marriage equality. In recent years, Neu made headlines primarily when breaking ranks with the conservatives who now dominate his party. He opposed the campaign to recall three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010 and endorsed Christie Vilsack for Congress over GOP incumbent Steve King. Neu caucused for Mitt Romney in January 2012 but said he would vote for Barack Obama in the general election, in part because of the abortion issue.  

Happy new year to everyone in the Bleeding Heartland community! Undeterred by my failure (yet again) to win, place, or show in my own blog’s election contest, I offer fifteen Iowa politics predictions for this calendar year.

Your own predictions or any other relevant comments are welcome in this thread. At the end of this year I’ll look back to see what we got right or wrong.

Republican State Representative Mark Costello easily won yesterday’s special election to represent Iowa Senate district 12. The seat became vacant after Joni Ernst’s victory in the U.S. Senate race. According to unofficial results posted on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website, Costello received 3,068 votes, to 924 votes for Democrat Steve Adams and 131 votes for Libertarian Don Brantz. Adams deserves credit for stepping up to give voters a choice in the second- or third-most Republican Iowa Senate district. Although the Libertarians were smart to nominate a candidate here, they didn’t have anything like the Iowa GOP’s resources for voter turnout, and their nominee got the worst kind of publicity a candidate can have when he was charged with several crimes earlier this month.

Democrats retain a 26 to 24 majority in the Iowa Senate, but Costello told Radio Iowa he’s optimistic and hopeful Republicans will win a majority after the 2016 elections. They certainly will have better opportunities to gain Iowa Senate seats in the coming cycle than they did in 2014. Blowing the chance to defeat GOP State Senator Mark Chelgren this year could prove costly for Iowa Democrats.

Costello’s victory will force a special election in Iowa House district 23, which he has represented for the last two years. Like Senate district 12, the House district should be safe for Republicans, allowing them to maintain a 57 to 43 majority in the Iowa House next year.

I expect another crowded GOP nominating convention when House district 23 delegates meet to choose a new candidate. Several people who sought the GOP nomination in Senate district 12 live in communities Costello has represented. Republicans would do well to nominate a woman. It’s embarrassing that Amy Sinclair is the only woman left in their Iowa Senate caucus, and the Iowa House GOP caucus includes 51 men (including Costello) to just six women.

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

Did anyone get any noteworthy holiday greetings from politicians this year? It was bittersweet to open Tom Harkin’s final holiday card as a U.S. senator. My family also received a card with a lovely photo of Monica Vernon, her husband, and their three daughters. A Cedar Rapids City Council member, Vernon accepted this year’s Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor shortly after being runner-up in the first Congressional district primary. I assume her holiday greeting went out to everyone who donated to Jack Hatch’s campaign for governor, since I did not contribute to Vernon’s Congressional effort. I expect Vernon to run for Congress again in 2016, although she might be angling to run for governor in 2018 instead. First-term Representative Rod Blum should be vulnerable in IA-01 when he has to face a presidential-year electorate.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama turned a typical holiday photo-op into a teaching moment when he and First Lady Michelle Obama delivered gifts to the U.S. Marine Corps’ Toys for Tots campaign.

The President started putting the sports and the science toys into the ‘girls’ bin.  Placing a basketball into the bin, Obama says:

“I just wanna make sure some girls play some ball.”

A person from the crowd queries his decision to put legos in the girls, rather than the boys collection – because they might not like them.  The President responds:

“Girls don’t like toys?”

As he continues to sort, he comes across a T-Ball set.

“T-Ball? Girls like T-Ball” and nodding, puts the set in the girls’ bin.  The crowd is snapping photos, with some looking a little confused and he adds. “I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes.”

I love it. Girls shouldn’t be limited to the toys specially marketed to them and their parents (dolls, beauty products, and legos in pink and purple hues).

Obama caused a stir in the White House press corps when he called on eight women and no men at his final press conference this year. The move was not a coincidence:

“The fact is, there are many women from a variety of news organizations who day-in and day-out do the hard work of covering the president of the United States,” [White House press secretary Josh] Earnest said. “As the questioner list started to come together, we realized that we had a unique opportunity to highlight the fact at the president’s closely watched, end-of-the-year news conference.”

In what might be described as a Christmas miracle, a Democrat has stepped up to run in the January 6 special election to represent Iowa House district 4. The vacancy arose when State Representative Dwayne Alons passed away last month.

John Buntsma is the first Democrat since 2008 to contest the Iowa House district covering most of Sioux County (scroll down for a detailed map). Of the 100 Iowa House districts, this is the most Republican, with only 1,498 active registered Democrats, 13,279 Republicans, and 3,555 no-party voters according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. GOP presidential candidates routinely top 80 percent in Sioux County, and Governor Terry Branstad got about 91 percent of the votes there this year. In a statement I’ve enclosed below, Buntsma said he is running because “It is important for all of us to have choices. I felt that the voters should have more than one choice.” Good for him. I would love to see Democratic candidates compete in every Iowa House and Senate district, no matter how hopeless the race may appear.

I haven’t seen any detailed background on John Kooiker, the “military veteran, family farmer and retired postal service worker” who won a Republican nominating convention in House district 4. A short press release noted that Kooiker “heavily emphasized his social conservative beliefs,” which helped him secure the GOP nomination on the third ballot. That probably makes him a pretty good fit for the district. Alons was one of the most outspoken social conservatives in the Iowa House Republican caucus.

After the jump I’ve enclosed two press releases containing background on Buntsma. Note the difference between the version circulated by the candidate himself and the shorter release from the Iowa Democratic Party. I’ve often heard Democratic candidates complain that party types warn them against speaking their minds on potentially controversial issues. In a race like this, what difference could it make to downplay Buntsma’s beliefs on immigration, the minimum wage, or the exemption casinos received from Iowa’s public smoking ban?

Tony Leys didn’t bring glad tidings today to the 120,000 members of CoOportunity Health in Iowa and Nebraska. In a front-page story for the Des Moines Register, Leys reported that state regulators have taken over the non-profit health insurance co-op, one of only two companies selling policies on Iowa’s exchange. It sounds like the co-op will be liquidated in the coming months.  

Merry Christmas to everyone in the Bleeding Heartland community who is celebrating the holiday, and peace on earth to all regardless of religious beliefs and customs. This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

In past years I have posted some links about the religious origins of Christmas celebrations as well as some traditional food for the holiday.

Children often look forward to the toys they will receive on Christmas. Unfortunately, not all of those toys are safe or appropriate. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood gives out “awards” annually for the worst toys of the year. This year’s nominees were atrocious. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s annual “Trouble in Toyland” report is an excellent resource for parents, and I recommend checking to see if any of your children’s gifts ended up on the danger list. I’ve posted the executive summary after the jump, along with excerpts from a good Des Moines Register article on keeping your kids safe during the holidays.

Speaking of safety, the long Christmas weekend tends to be a busy time for travel. If you are driving to see friends or family, one of the best presents you can give yourself, your loved ones, and everyone else on the road is not using your cell phone while driving. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking or texting, or whether you are holding the phone or using hands-free technology: “There is no safe way to use a cell phone while driving.” Legislative bans on texting while driving or using hand-held phones haven’t reduced crashes (including in Iowa), only partly because of noncompliance. Hands-free devices give drivers a “false sense of security,” and drivers aware of texting bans may attempt to hold their phones out of view, increasing the amount of time they take their eyes off the road.

UPDATE: I should have included a few links on good toys. Here’s a piece on toys that encourage creative, imaginative play, and here’s a classic on “The 5 Best Toys of All Time” (though I would replace “dirt” with a ball).

A district court judge has ruled that former State Representative Henry Rayhons will be tried in Hancock County for 3rd Degree Sexual Abuse (allegedly having sex with his incapacitated wife). Prosecutors had tried to move the trial to another county, a request more often made by defense attorneys. Tony Leys reported for the Des Moines Register,

District Judge Rustin Davenport heard arguments last week from prosecutors, who said extensive pretrial publicity about the case would make it impossible to find impartial jurors in Rayhons’ home county. But the judge sided with defense lawyer Joel Yunek, who contended that the news coverage included statements both sympathetic and harmful to Henry Rayhons.

“Exposure to news accounts does not by itself create substantial likelihood of prejudice in minds of prospective jurors and does not alone entitle a party to a change of venue,” the judge wrote, in a decision filed late Friday afternoon. Davenport wrote that the articles in question, including those in local media, The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg News, mostly consisted of material that would be introduced at trial anyway.

The judge disagreed with prosecutors’ contention that jurors could be swayed by Rayhons’ supporters’ statements in the media that the charge was politically motivated by a Democratic attorney general against a Republican legislator.

“The court is skeptical that most jurors would accept such speculative statements or that such statements would influence most fair-minded jurors,” Davenport wrote. “…Even though the defendant was re-elected with approximately 70 percent of the vote in 2012, the defendant’s popularity in the polls does not equate to jurors being unable to be fair and impartial regarding a criminal prosecution against an elected official or formerly elected official. The court would note that the public is much less likely to put their elected officials on a pedestal as they may have been in the past.”

During last week’s hearing,

Yunek said the unusual case will raise difficult questions for jurors to consider. “But whether those jurors reside in Hancock or Poweshiek or Sioux or Johnson or any county in the state of Iowa, it’s going to be the same challenges, the same grappling, regardless,” he said.

I will be surprised if Rayhons is convicted. All he needs is one juror who believes a man can do whatever he wants with his wife. In any group of Iowans selected for jury duty, there is probably at least one person inclined toward that view, regardless of the trial venue.

On the other hand, I suspect Rayhons is more likely to get a sympathetic hearing from people he represented for eighteen years in the Iowa House than from a random group of twelve Iowans who have never heard of him. State lawmakers get overwhelmingly positive attention from local news media. If I were the prosecutor in this case, I would have wanted to move the trial, not primarily because of reporting about the arrest and alleged crime, but to avoid the residual effect from many years of favorable coverage Rayhons would have received as “our man in Des Moines.”  

Following up on last week’s look at “most wanted” Iowa Democrats, Jennifer Jacobs wrote a feature for today’s Sunday Des Moines Register on “50 of Iowa’s makers and shakers for the Republican presidential caucuses.” Any comments about the list or GOP politics in general are welcome in this thread.

It seems like Jacobs couldn’t decide whether she was making a list of the 50 most influential Iowa Republicans, or the people who will be most sought out by presidential candidates. A lot of names in the top ten will almost certainly not endorse any candidate before the Iowa caucuses (Governor Terry Branstad, Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann, Branstad’s chief of staff Matt Hinch). For that reason, I expect some of the presidential campaigns to do far more courting of donors and activists who are lower down on Jacobs’ list. Big money men (they are all men) who will be highly sought after include Kyle Krause, Pete Brownell, Bruce Rastetter, Gary Kirke, Jim Cownie, David Oman, and Robert Haus.

I was surprised Jacobs put David Kochel and Sara Craig Gongol so far down the list at numbers 36 and 39, respectively. Not only were they deeply involved in Romney’s 2012 campaign in Iowa, millions of dollars passed through dark money groups those two ran during this year’s U.S. Senate race. To my mind, they will be among the go-to Iowa Republicans for people who want to slime a less-preferred candidate before the caucuses, but don’t want their fingerprints on the job. Kochel and Craig aren’t shy about skating close to the edge when it comes to federal rules designed to ban coordination between campaigns and outside groups making independent media expenditures.

I was also surprised Jacobs left out talk radio host Steve Deace. Along with Sam Clovis and a few leaders of megachurches, he will be a loud voice in the Iowa GOP’s social conservative wing, and I’m sure several presidential candidates will work hard to win his endorsement.

UPDATE: I thought it was strange that former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants made Jacobs’ list–he hasn’t been speaker since 2006, and he retired from the legislature in 2010. James Lynch pointed out that it’s even more odd for Rants to be there, given that Jacobs did not mention current Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen or Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix. Paulsen endorsed Newt Gingrich shortly before the 2012 caucuses. Dix did not endorse any of the contenders.

SECOND UPDATE: Shane Vander Hart commented n the Jacobs list at Caffeinated Thoughts. I largely agree with his take, especially this part:

Being an effective campaign staffer doesn’t (necessarily) equal influence. […] There are some people who are on this list who are great at the work that they do.  Tim Albrecht is an effective communications/PR guy, Phil Valenziano, Grant Young, they are great, hardworking campaign staffers, but influencers?  That can be debated and it depends on how you define influence and/or who the target of the influence is.  

Vander Hart also pointed out that WHO radio host Jan Mickelson was left off the list, even though he has a large audience around the state: “Mickelson doesn’t endorse, but he is a great conduit to grassroots Republicans and candidates need to shoot straight with him (ask Mitt Romney).”  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome. Happy Chanukah to those who are celebrating. It looks like most of Iowa won’t have a white Christmas, but at least that will make travel easier for people going home for the holidays.

This week Stephen Colbert wrapped up production of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Dozens of political and cultural celebrities showed up to help sing “We’ll Meet Again” during the final show on Thursday. Next year Colbert will take over the CBS Late Show from David Letterman.

Although I’ve been a fan since the days Colbert was a correspondent on The Daily Show, I didn’t expect his character to be able to carry an entire program for more than a year or two before the shtick got old. I was wrong: the quality remained amazingly high. In this podcast, Colbert described his process for getting in character and a typical day in the production of The Colbert Report. So much work went into what came off as effortless commentaries on current events.

Colbert filmed more than 1,400 episodes of his late-night show, but his most memorable performance as his conservative alter ego was surely his routine at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2006. Click here for the video or here for a full transcript.

NPR posted excerpts from six different interviews with Colbert since his show debuted in 2005.

Over the years, Colbert interviewed 81 members of the U.S. House for his “Better Know a District” segments. Click through to watch the final installment, featuring Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia’s first district. It was hilarious.

President Barack Obama announced yesterday that the U.S. would normalize relations with Cuba after about a year of secret negotiations involving Canada and Pope Francis. On hearing the news, my first thought was that when the Soviet Union collapsed, I would never have believed it would be another 23 years before this happened. My second thought was that expanded trade with Cuba would help Iowa’s economy. Matt Milner reported for the Ottumwa Courier that agricultural groups are bullish on the news. I’ve posted excerpts from his story after the jump. Key point:

A paper written in 2003 for Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, shortly after some restrictions were lifted, said Iowa could benefit more from increased Cuban trade than any other state aside from Arkansas and California.

I was surprised not to see more reaction to yesterday’s news from members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation. I know everyone’s gone home for the Christmas recess, but still–big news. I will update this post as needed.

Several possible presidential candidates commented on the new U.S. approach to Cuba. Senator Rand Paul was supportive, saying Obama’s decision was a “good idea” since the American embargo against Cuba “just hasn’t worked.” Republicans who bashed the president on this issue included former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has advocated normal relations with Cuba for some time.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user cocinero posted Senator Chuck Grassley’s reaction in the comments.

Senator Tom Harkin cast his final votes in Congress yesterday as the upper chamber wrapped up the lame-duck session. He and Senator Chuck Grassley were on opposite sides as Democrats confirmed a batch of presidential nominees on Monday and Tuesday. You can view all the roll calls here; the nominees were approved mostly along party lines. They included several judges and assistant secretaries of various agencies and Dr. Vivek Murthy, confirmed as surgeon general by 51 votes to 43, with only one Republican yes vote. Murthy had been the target of a relentless “smear campaign” by conservative media and the National Rifle Association, because of his comment in October 2012 that “Guns are a health care issue.”

The conservative media attacks against Murthy began in early March. Coverage of his nomination focused on his past acknowledgement that gun violence affects public health, which conservative media spun as evidence Murthy is obsessed with gun regulations. (Murthy has actually said his focus as Surgeon General will not be on gun violence, but rather obesity.)

Because of strange Senate procedural rules, hardline conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz inadvertently made this week’s raft of confirmations possible. His constitutional point of order against the massive federal government funding bill last Friday prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to convene the chamber on Saturday. That gave Democrats more time to set up confirmation votes on nominees this Monday and Tuesday. Rebecca Kaplan of CBS News explained here that the most controversial presidential nominees to be confirmed “thanks to Ted Cruz” are Murthy, Tony Blinken for Deputy Secretary of State, and Sarah Saldaña, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director in the Department of Homeland Security. Harkin voted for and Grassley against all of those nominees.

Iowa’s senators ended up on the same side in one big vote this week: the bill extending dozens of tax breaks for corporations and individuals. Steven Dennis noted in Roll Call,

Handing out mostly corporate tax breaks and adding to the debt to do it has proven to be a popular thing for Congress. Democrats including President Barack Obama spent the better part of 2013 trying to get Republicans to agree to more revenue as part of a budget deal, but are now signing on to deficit expansion for the sake of tax breaks that will expire, again, in two weeks.

Usually, these tax breaks – which range from the R&D tax break to breaks for NASCAR, racehorse owners and wind farms – are touted as incentives – and indeed some senators called them that Tuesday. But it’s hard to retroactively incentivize anything – a point made on the Senate floor by outgoing Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who voted no and said the tax bill didn’t even have the shelf life of a carton of eggs. […] After President Barack Obama threatened to veto an emerging deal after the midterms that would have added close to half a trillion to the debt over a decade, the scaled-back bill was all Congress could muster.

The tax extenders bill passed by 76 votes to 16. Joining Iowa’s senators in the yes column were possible GOP presidential candidates Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. Opponents of this bill included Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Independent Bernie Sanders, who is exploring a presidential campaign as a Democrat, missed yesterday’s votes because he was in Iowa.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Grassley’s official statement on the tax extenders bill is after the jump.

Who’s up for a new thread on possible presidential candidates? The big news on the Republican side today was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announcing that he will “actively explore” a presidential bid. Bush is forming a leadership PAC to raise huge piles of money “help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation.”

I can’t see Bush winning the GOP nomination, given his past support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Among Iowa conservatives, his support for “Common Core” educational standards will be a deal-breaker too. On the other hand, Bush poses an immediate threat to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The two would be competing for many of the same donors and Republican moderate voters.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s staff says Bush’s decision won’t influence Rubio’s plans for 2016. I am 100 percent convinced that Florida’s junior senator will run for re-election. He has pretty good odds of winning a second term but would be a long-shot to win the presidential nomination.

On the Democratic side, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (technically an independent) was in central Iowa today. I’ve posted excerpts from news coverage after the jump. It’s Sanders’ fourth Iowa visit this year, but he told a supportive Ames crowd he hasn’t decided whether to run for president.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren continues to repeat that she is not running for president in 2016. But MoveOn.Org’s “Run Warren Run” project is organizing an event at Java Joe’s coffee house in downtown Des Moines. Some central Iowa Democrats received phone calls from MoveOn today inviting them to the pro-Warren event, which is set for 5:30 pm on Wednesday, December 17.

I still think the draft Warren effort is a waste of time and energy. Apparently, so does progressive hero Al Franken. Minnesota’s junior U.S. senator is “ready for Hillary” Clinton:

“I mean, I think that we’ve not had someone this experienced, this tough, and she’s very, very impressive. People have asked me about Elizabeth Warren. She is great, but she’s not running. She says she’s not running. So I don’t-I think Hillary would be great.”

Any comments about the next presidential campaign are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Democracy for America announced on December 17 that it will invest $250,000 in the Draft Warren effort. I’ve added the group’s press release at the end of this post. Run Warren Run ran a full-page ad in the Des Moines Register on December 17, featuring hundreds of Iowans who are urging the Massachusetts senator to run for president.

Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum attended the “Run Warren Run” event in Des Moines and called Warren “brilliant” and “courageous.” But Jochum is not endorsing Warren over Hillary Clinton and hopes the Democratic field will include both women, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and others.

Contrary to fantasies promoted by some social conservatives, improved sex ed programs appear to be making teenagers more likely to use birth control and far less likely to become pregnant. Tony Leys reported for the Sunday Des Moines Register,

Teen birth rates are plummeting in Iowa and across the country, and experts say it’s mainly because young people are being more careful about sex. Despite rosy memories about how wholesome kids were in the good old days, the fact is that American teens were three times more likely to become parents in the late 1950s and early 1960s than they are today. […]

Researchers and activists are trying to understand what’s behind the declining teen birth rates so they can keep the trend going.

“That’s the question of the day. Nobody can pinpoint exactly what’s causing this,” said Addie Rasmusson, a community health consultant with the Iowa Department of Public Health.

Rasmusson said part of the explanation is that educators have determined which types of lessons make the most difference. They have created carefully researched lesson plans for teachers to follow.

“Twenty years ago, maybe you could throw together whatever you thought sex ed should be,” she said.

Rasmusson added that lesson plans can be flexible. For example, she said, messages are tailored to reach teen boys and members of racial groups that have relatively high pregnancy rates. […]

A recent national report from the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health, said the teen birth rate decline is mainly because of increased and improved use of contraceptives. Teens are not becoming dramatically less sexually active, the report says. They’re also not having more abortions. But they are having fewer babies.

Leys’ report is worth reading in full, as he describes some innovative sex ed programs that teach teens “how to say no to unwanted sex, how to prevent pregnancies and how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.” Toward the end, the article points to a big problem for birth control access in rural Iowa. I was not aware that Casey’s General Stores has a company-wide policy against selling condoms. They are the only retail outlet in many towns. Independently-owned pharmacies have been disappearing from Iowa communities, and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has reduced the number of clinics it operates in small towns as well.  

Governor Terry Branstad has repeatedly used his power to supersede local government decision-making, from 1990s policies to block counties from restricting large hog confinements to an executive order banning project labor agreements the very first day he was back in office in January 2011.

On Friday Iowans saw the latest example of Branstad’s disregard for local officials’ ability to decide what’s best.

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

Iowa Democrats are chattering away on social media about the “50 Most Wanted” list Jennifer Jacobs wrote for today’s Sunday Des Moines Register.

The Iowans who made the “50 most wanted” list are influencers who can slap together a house party and get more than 40 people to show up to meet their candidate. A dozen are paid political operatives – the ones who not only know the Iowa terrain best, but also know how to organize a 99-county campaign, build buzz and a perception of momentum, and win over caucusgoers. Dozens more influencers not mentioned here will be highly sought after for their guidance.

Jacobs’ list includes many household names but also donors and activists who rarely attract public notice, even though they are influential in their communities (such as Kim Weaver in northwest Iowa and Kurt Meyer in northeast Iowa). State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is number one on the list, and while he is certainly the most powerful Iowa Democrat overall, he’s probably not the most important “get” for a presidential campaign. The rest of the top ten: U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack, Attorney General Tom Miller, retiring Senator Tom Harkin and his wife Ruth Harkin, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Governor Tom Vilsack and his wife Christie Vilsack, Iowa secretary of state candidate Brad Anderson, major donor Jerry Crawford, and Dr. Andy McGuire, a possible future Congressional candidate or perhaps chair of the Iowa Democratic Party.

Incidentally, Jacobs put Bruce Braley’s Senate campaign manager Sarah Benzing in the number 50 slot, but I believe she will be more sought after by future Democratic candidates than many others who are higher up on this “most wanted” list. The Braley campaign’s biggest problems can’t be pinned on Benzing. Moreover, she has run three successful U.S. Senate races, including Sherrod Brown’s 2012 campaign in Ohio–a state with a notoriously weak and dysfunctional Democratic Party.

The huge bill to keep the federal government funded through next September has drawn most of the political news coverage this weekend. Retiring Representative Tom Latham was the only Iowan to support this bad bill in the U.S. House. Both of Iowa’s U.S. senators voted against it last night.  

Senator Tom Harkin cast his last votes in Congress over the weekend. After the jump I’ve posted the video and full transcript of Harkin’s final speech on the U.S. Senate floor, delivered on December 12. He and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley were at odds in many roll-call votes these past two days. However, they both voted against the $1.1 trillion government funding bill senators passed late Saturday night. The 56 to 40 roll call reveals an unusual bipartisan split. Yes votes came from 32 Democrats and 24 Republicans, while 21 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted no. Liberals like Harkin found plenty to dislike in the so-called “cromnibus” spending bill. Notably, it included a big change to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was literally written by one of the large banks that will benefit. The spending bill also includes a “big coal giveaway”, big cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency budget, and several other bad environmental provisions. What Democrats supposedly got out of the “cromnibus” wasn’t worth it in my opinion.

Just before the final vote on the spending bill, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas raised a constitutional point of order:

“If you believe President Obama’s executive order was unconstitutional vote yes,” Cruz said ahead of the vote on Saturday. “If you think the president’s executive order is constitutional vote no.”

Only 22 senators voted with Cruz and 74 voted against his point of order.

The roll call shows that Grassley was one of the Republicans who voted for the point of order. The group included several senators who may run for president (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman) and a bunch of Republicans who are up for re-election in 2016 and presumably want to avoid a GOP primary challenge.

Many of the Republicans who opposed Cruz’s motion (including the Senate GOP leadership team) probably were motivated by the desire to avoid a government shutdown. Nevertheless, they are now on record voting no when Cruz said such a vote signified a belief that “the president’s executive order is constitutional.”

Also on Saturday, senators approved on party lines a series of motions to advance judicial nominees. Here Harkin and Grassley were on opposite sides. In fact, disagreements over whether to vote on these nominations delayed a final vote on the spending bill. Harkin and other Democrats backed all the nominations. Grassley will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee when the new Congress convenes and has promised more vigorous oversight of nominations. He objected to moving the judicial nominations during the lame-duck session, even though many of the nominees were non-controversial and had been approved by a Judiciary Committee voice vote. In fact, Republican senators from Illinois and Texas had recommended some of these nominees for federal judgeships.

Last night the U.S. House approved a $1.1 trillion “cromnibus,” a massive continuing resolution to fund most of the federal government through September 2015. The 219 to 206 roll call showed an unusual bipartisan split, with 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats supporting the bill, while 67 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted against it. Many of the most outspoken House progressives and conservatives were against the cromnibus, for different reasons. Only one of Iowa’s four U.S. House members voted yes: retiring Republican Tom Latham (IA-03). I have not seen any official statement explaining his reasons.

Republican Steve King (IA-04) opposed the bill primarily because in his view, it did not do enough to block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. I’ve posted some of King’s recent statements on the issue after the jump. King’s office has not responded to my request for comment on assertions by House Appropriations Committee staff that it would be “impossible” to defend the immigration order. King offered an amendment (full text here) which would have funded “all of the government until January 30 of next year but [would] prohibit any and all funds from being used to carry out the president’s lawless, unconstitutional executive amnesty in all its forms.” But an analysis by Scott Wong for The Hill suggests that the Obama administration would be able to carry out the executive order even if Congress shut down the federal government.

Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) both voted against the funding bill. I have not seen any official statement explaining those votes but will update this post as needed.

Republicans nominated State Representative Mark Costello for the December 30 special election to replace Joni Ernst in Iowa Senate district 12. The district covers Mills, Fremont, Montgomery, Page, Taylor, and Ringgold counties in southwest Iowa. This post includes a map.

Seven candidates sought the GOP nomination in this strongly Republican district, containing more than twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Besides the five candidates Bleeding Heartland discussed here, David Sieck and Charla Schmid joined the GOP race. Sieck is a Mills County farmer who has been active on Missouri River management issues. Schmid has served several terms on the Montgomery County School Board and is active in Business and Professional Women/Iowa. She also serves on the board of directors of 50/50 in 2020, a bipartisan group encouraging more Iowa women to run for office.

The Iowa Republican’s Craig Robinson wrote up last night’s nominating convention, where Costello led from the beginning and secured the nomination on the fourth ballot.

A Democratic district convention will meet this weekend to nominate Steve Adams of Red Oak. He is a community development specialist with Iowa State University Extension.

Earlier this week, Libertarians nominated Don Brantz for the Senate district 12 special. He is “a longtime Mills County supervisor and southwest Iowa social worker” who is running on a platform of increasing funding for rural schools and abolishing the state Department of Education. It’s smart for Libertarians to compete here. Odds are long, but anything can happen in a low-turnout environment, and how many people will show up to vote on December 30?

Costello is the heavy favorite. If he wins, a special election will be needed in Iowa House district 23, covering Mills and Fremont counties, plus most of Montgomery County. House Republican leaders did not assign any committee chairmanship to Costello, perhaps expecting that he would soon leave for the Iowa Senate.

Regardless of who wins the Senate district 12 special, the number of women in the Iowa Senate will drop from ten the past two years to seven for the next two years. First-termer Amy Sinclair will be the only woman in the Iowa Senate GOP caucus.  

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is staying on as board chairman of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the group announced today. I’ve enclosed the full statement after the jump.

The DLCC focuses on state legislative elections around the country. The group has its work cut out, because Republicans made huge gains in state legislatures in November. In fact, “The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers — the highest number in the history of the party.” Holding the 26-24 Iowa Senate majority was one of the few bright spots for Democrats, along with maintaining a majority in the Kentucky House of Representatives (which complicates life for potential presidential candidate Rand Paul).

The Iowa GOP will have more state Senate pickup opportunities in 2016 than they did this year. Twelve Iowa Senate races saw significant spending by one or both parties in 2012, whereas only a half-dozen or so Senate seats looked competitive going into 2014. By October of this year, most of the spending by Iowa Democrats and Republicans was concentrated in four state Senate races. Depending on retirements and candidate recruitment, at least ten Iowa Senate districts will be potentially competitive during the 2016 cycle.

Incidentally, the only other Iowan on the DLCC’s board of directors is Senator Wally Horn of Cedar Rapids. Just re-elected to another four-year term in Senate district 35, Horn has served in the Iowa legislature for 42 years (10 in the state House and 32 in the Senate), longer than any other sitting lawmaker.

At least three progressive Democratic groups (Democracy for America, MoveOn, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee) are mobilizing liberal Democrats to support U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren for president. The idea is to make sure the 2016 campaign includes a strong voice for economic populism. In a statement released yesterday, Democracy for America’s executive director Charles Chamberlain said one of the group’s “top priorities will be ensuring that the battle for the Democratic nomination is a contest, not a coronation.” I’ve enclosed their full press release after the jump.

There’s a first time for everything, and I believe this is the first time I’ve disagreed with DFA’s strategy. Warren has consistently said and continues to say that she is not running for president. I don’t believe she is open to changing her mind, unless Hillary Clinton surprises everyone by not running. Instead of wasting time trying to draft a candidate who doesn’t want to seek the presidency, progressive groups should wait until the field is set and then support the contender who most closely aligns with their interests.

Although I would certainly consider caucusing for Warren if she did run for president, progressives need her to be focused on her work in the Senate, not on raising money for a hopeless Democratic primary campaign. Warren can be a strong voice, not only against bad language Congressional Republicans try to sneak into legislation, but also against Obama administration shortcomings on personnel and policy. Everyone has a role to play, and we need outspoken liberals in the Senate, especially with Tom Harkin retiring.

Finally, it’s hard to disagree with Governor Howard Dean’s contention that “Hilllary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States to serve as President.” The only Democrat who even comes close is Vice President Joe Biden, who said this week that he will decide whether to run again “at the end of the spring or early summer.” Clinton has the highest name recognition and sky-high favorables with almost every key Democratic constituency.

I understand the concept of a candidate like Warren pushing Clinton to the left during the primaries, but let’s get real: a Harvard professor turned senator from Massachusetts, in the middle of her first term, is not going to be elected president, even with the “Big Blue Wall” propping her up. Whereas Clinton would go into the general election as the front-runner against almost any conceivable Republican nominee.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: A Bleeding Heartland reader shared an e-mail that some former Barack Obama campaign workers received this morning. The Ready for Warren Presidential Draft Campaign PAC is urging “Obama alumni” to sign a petition calling on Warren to run for president in 2016. I’ve enclosed that message at the end of this post.  

Governor Terry Branstad has often appointed unsuccessful Republican candidates to state positions, and this week he named Adam Gregg, the GOP nominee for Iowa attorney general, to be Iowa State Public Defender. I’ve enclosed the press release after the jump. It contains background on Gregg, who worked as a staffer in the governor’s office before running against longtime Democratic incumbent Tom Miller. I don’t anticipate Gregg having any trouble being confirmed by the Iowa Senate.

The Des Moines rumor mill says Miller will retire at the end of his ninth term as attorney general. An race for that position would likely attract many candidates in both parties. I expect Gregg to seek the office in 2018, along with Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley, who was the GOP challenger to Miller in 2010. Several Republicans in the Iowa House or Senate might give this race a look, especially if there are no open Congressional seats on the horizon.

For those wondering whether Gregg or Findley performed better against Miller, the answer depends on how you look at it. Both of the challengers raised quite a bit of money for first-time candidates seeking a statewide office. Gregg raised $191,359 in his first month and a half as a candidate, then nearly another $200,000 before the election; see here and here. Findley also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her 2010 race; see here, here, and here.

Both Gregg and Findley campaigned energetically around the state, visiting all 99 counties and attending hundreds of public events. In 2010, when total turnout was 1,133,429 for the midterm election, Miller received 607,779 votes to 486,057 for Findley (there were a smattering of write-ins and 38,605 “under votes,” meaning voters left that part of the ballot blank).

This year total turnout was a bit higher at 1,142,226, and Miller received 616,711 votes to 481,046 for Gregg (there were more write-ins and 43,016 under votes).

So Findley received a slightly higher share of the two-party vote, but she also had way more help. Branstad talked up her campaign all year and appeared in one of her television commercials. She was able to run far more radio and tv ads statewide, thanks to more than half a million dollars in transfers from the Republican Party of Iowa. Gregg didn’t get anything like that kind of assistance or exposure, so arguably he got more bang for his campaign bucks.

I’m intrigued that an ambitious young conservative politician wanted to serve as the state public defender. It’s an important job, and I hope Gregg does it well. Some of my favorite people have worked as public defenders. But there’s no getting around the fact that his office will be defending some unsavory characters. The job is risky in that next time Gregg is a candidate for public office, rivals could run “Willie Horton” ads against him highlighting onetime clients who committed horrible crimes.

The Iowa House will begin its 2015 session on January 12 with 57 Republicans and 43 Democrats (assuming a Republican wins the January 6 special election in House district 4). Depending on who wins that special election, the 100 state representatives will include either 27 or 28 women, and either 72 or 73 men.

After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa House majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing House committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since the previous legislative session.

Some non-political trivia: two of the three state representatives with the surname Olson retired this year, as did one of the two Iowa House members named Smith. There are still two Millers and two Taylors in the legislature’s lower chamber, one from each party. As for first names, the new cohort contains five six Davids (four go by Dave), four Roberts (two Robs, one Bob, and a Bobby), four Marys (one goes by Mary Ann), three four Johns, and three Brians. There are two Lindas, two Elizabeths (a Beth and a Liz), and two men each named Dan, Mark, Greg, Chuck, Bruce, Todd, and Chris.

2015 UPDATE: Added below information for John Kooiker, who won the House district 4 special election, and David Sieck, who won the House district 23 special election.  

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin’s been giving a lot of interviews lately as he wraps up a 40-year career in Congress this month. I’ve posted some of the newsworthy excerpts after the jump, along with the full text of Senator Chuck Grassley’s widely-praised tribute to his colleague on the Senate floor.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: James Q. Lynch’s feature for the Cedar Rapids Gazette on “The Harkin Legacy” is a good read.  

The last U.S. Senate election of 2014 concluded over the weekend, with Republican Bill Cassidy defeating Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu. So, I was finally able to tabulate results from Bleeding Heartland’s general election prediction contest.

Thanks to all who entered. Follow me after the jump for full results.  

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

The Washington Post’s media critic Eric Wemple caught syndicated columnist George Will red-handed in a flagrant conflict of interest.

This case highlights Will’s intersecting lines of influence. He’s a director of the Bradley Foundation, an entity with more than $800 million in assets and 2013 grants totaling nearly $34 million to organizations in Wisconsin and across the country, including big-time Beltway entities like the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society. His column is syndicated to about 450 newspapers. Keeping those two worlds separate is quite a job, as the Nov. 19 column demonstrates: Here, Will touted an outlet funded generously by a group he helps to lead. And thanks to the columnist’s kind words, WILL may have an easier time finding funders outside of the Bradley Foundation. All very cozy, synergistic and, as media critics might say, an out-and-out conflict of interest – an offense of which Will has been accused before.

Click through to read the whole column, including Will’s response. The columnist is unrepentant: “I do not see how disclosure of my connection to Bradley, and Bradley’s connection to WILL, and WILL’s connection to the school choice program, would be important to readers.” That suggests he will not hesitate to pull the same stunt again. Newspapers including the Des Moines Register should drop Will’s column if they don’t share his views on what constitutes full disclosure.

Speaking of the Register, Lynn Hicks (up to now the newspaper’s executive business editor) is taking over this month as editorial page editor as Randy Evans retires from that position. Evans will be missed. Seven people will serve on the Register’s editorial board going forward: President and Publisher Rick Green, Executive Editor Amalie Nash, Lynn Hicks, Rox Laird, Andie Dominick, Clark Kauffman, and Brian Smith. Laird has been writing editorials at the Register for about 30 years, Dominick since 2001. Kauffman is a longtime investigative reporter who just joined the editorial board in September of this year. Smith “is taking on a new engagement editor role that emphasizes reaching new audiences and connecting with the community”; up to now he has been an associate digital editor for the Register.

It’s probably too much to hope for the Register to make the politics and opinion sections of the website easier to navigate. Every newspaper owned by Gannett seems to operate with the same horrible template now. So I’ll settle for hoping that in the future, the Register will disclose any family connections between subjects of guest columns and members of the editorial board.

Rolling Stone magazine is backing off from a widely publicized story about an alleged rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. There were red flags in the original story, and some other journalists have questioned why no one from Rolling Stone interviewed the alleged perpetrators of the gang rape. I agree 100 percent with Olga Khazan: “this whole episode is terrible news for survivors of rape on college campuses and elsewhere.” Whatever did or did not happen to “Jackie” (the subject of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article), the collapse of this story undermines advocates working to get colleges and universities to address the real problem of sexual assault on campus.  

I haven’t received the call myself, but multiple acquaintances who are registered Iowa Democrats have been respondents for a lengthy message-testing poll about Hillary Clinton in recent days. The survey takes approximately 30 minutes and includes lots of questions about whether X, Y, or Z would be a reason you would or would not support Hillary Clinton in the next Iowa caucuses.

The survey also asks Iowans about several other possible Democratic candidates, including Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar, and former U.S. Senator Jim Webb, who recently formed an exploratory committee for a presidential bid. UPDATE: Other Iowa Democrats confirm the call asked about Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley as well.

From what I’ve heard, this poll did not ask about Republican presidential candidates, with one exception: a question about whether a Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush match up of American political dynasties would be a good or bad thing.

I hope other Bleeding Heartland readers can provide more details about this poll, including not only questions asked but also what research firm is being used (which should be mentioned at the end of the call). My acquaintances do not recall hearing any organization’s name mentioned, such as the Ready for Hillary super PAC.  Feel free to post comments in this thread or send a confidential e-mail message.

Speaking of Clinton’s presidential prospects, Amie Parnes reported for The Hill this week that only four Republicans worry “Clinton World”: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. (Parnes didn’t name all of the Clinton associates she interviewed for the story.) Of those four candidates, Walker strikes me as best-positioned to make it through the GOP primaries, if he can raise enough money for a credible campaign. Christie and Bush will be competing for the same donors and the same niche in the various primaries. I think both have taken too many positions that will be deal-breakers for the right wing.

UPDATE: In retrospect, I should not have said in the headline that someone is message-testing “for” Hillary Clinton, because a poll like this could just have easily been commissioned by a group looking for the best arguments to use against Clinton with the Iowa Democrats.

Governor Terry Branstad has set the special election in Iowa House district 4 for January 6, 2015. The vacancy arose when State Representative Dwayne Alons passed away last weekend. Of the 100 Iowa House districts, this is the most Republican, with only 1,498 active registered Democrats, 13,279 Republicans, and 3,555 no-party voters according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. Democrats have not nominated a candidate in this district since James Van Bruggen won less than 20 percent of the vote against Alons in 2008.

Although the Republican special nominating convention will likely determine Alons’ successor, a competitive special election is still possible. It only takes 50 signatures on a nominating petition to file as an independent or third-party candidate, and the filing period is open until December 23. Anything can happen in a low-turnout special election, so I wouldn’t be too surprised to see some other conservative file papers here, perhaps running as an independent or a Libertarian.

In the busy days before Thanksgiving, I missed this unintentional comedy from Governor Terry Branstad’s weekly press conference (hat tip to Todd Dorman):

“There’s also a constitutional question about whether the president of the United States has the authority to act unilaterally on issues like this [immigration policy],” Branstad said. “So I expect there’s going to be a lot of unanswered questions that I need to get information about and what the impact would have on our state.”

Asked if he would take executive action on state immigration policy, Branstad responded, “We don’t operate that way in Iowa.”

“That’s the difference between Washington, D.C., and Iowa,” Branstad said. “In Iowa, I’m very careful to recognize the separation of powers and to work with the Legislature.”

Where to begin?

It’s been a few weeks since Bleeding Heartland posted a thread for discussing the Iowa caucuses. Any thoughts about presidential candidates in either party are welcome here.

As usual, the latest national polling shows no real competition for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. Contrary to what you may have read in some strange post-election analysis, Clinton seems set to cruise in the Iowa caucuses too. Republicans appear to be trying out a new talking point against the Democratic front-runner: she allegedly makes “rock star demands” before speaking engagements. Peter Holley posted a funny comparison of Clinton’s demands to those of “actual rock stars.”

Everyone on the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee has signed a pledge not to publicly endorse any candidate during the next Iowa caucus campaign. The goal is to convince all candidates and the media that the game is not rigged, and everyone can compete here on a level playing field.

So far I haven’t seen any indication that any Republican contender might skip the caucuses. Iowans have had tons of opportunities to see potential presidential candidates these last few months. The latest conservative sensation, Dr. Ben Carson, was just in Des Moines for the FAMiLY Leader’s big fall fundraiser.

The more “moderate” or “establishment” contenders seem eager to compete in Iowa too. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came to the state twice shortly before the election, and pulled off a truly epic pander on “Black Friday” by vetoing a bill that would have banned gestation crates for pigs. Never mind that more than 90 percent of New Jersey residents back the bill, which passed both chambers of the legislature with huge majorities. Governor Terry Branstad was pleased, as were the Iowa Pork Producers and the Iowa Farm Bureau. In an editorial I’ve excerpted after the jump, one local newspaper concluded that “New Jersey is already in Christie’s rearview mirror.” I think other aspects of Christie’s record will be a deal-breaker for Iowa conservatives, but maybe if the field is fractured he could sneak into the top three here.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Rand Paul confirmed through a spokesman this week that he will run for re-election to the Senate in 2016. The staffer insisted that Paul could still run for president if he chooses to do so. Not under current Kentucky law, he can’t. And since Democrats held their majority in the lower chamber of that state’s legislature, the law is unlikely to be changed for Paul’s convenience. Going to court to challenge the law is probably a dead end, since most states prohibit candidates from appearing on the ballot for two offices at once. Local journalist Sam Youngman goes through some possible scenarios here.

At least five people are openly seeking the GOP nomination in Iowa Senate district 12, where a special election will be held on December 30 to replace U.S. Senator-elect Joni Ernst. In addition to State Representative Mark Costello and Fremont County Supervisor Cara Morgan, Clarinda School Board member Seth Watkins, Montgomery County GOP Chair Margaret Stoldorf, and Ringgold County GOP activist Tracee Knapp have all announced their candidacies. Watkins is a grain and livestock farmer as well as a 14-year incumbent on the school board. Stoldorf is a former Montgomery County supervisor and has managed a family farm as well. Knapp works for Children and Families of Iowa and operates a cattle farm, along with her husband.

KMA Radio 99.1 has invited all the candidates to take part in a one-hour radio forum at 7 pm on Monday, December 8.  Other candidates may declare before the GOP special nominating convention on December 11. I have not yet heard of any Democratic candidate in this overwhelmingly Republican district. Ernst ran unopposed in 2012.

Catching up on news from last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released new standards for ground-level ozone that will reduce the incidence and severity of various respiratory diseases. Click here for details on the standards.

Ground level or “bad” ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.

Current regulations allow ozone at 75 parts per billion. The new rules would lower that to a level between 65 and 70 parts per billion. Mark Drajem reported for Bloomberg News, “The EPA’s independent science advisers this year recommended the administration set the standard at 60 to 70 parts per billion, and urged the agency to consider the lower end of that range.”

After the jump I’ve posted the EPA’s press release and excerpts from a commentary by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, along with some reaction by critics of the proposal. Predictably, some business groups say the new standards will be devastating for the economy. McCarthy pointed out that same dire warnings have accompanied every new environmental regulation for decades.

The Iowa Association for Business and Industry is concerned that the EPA proposal may be expensive for manufacturers. Data collected between 2011 and 2013 at various monitoring sites around Iowa indicate that ground-level ozone is already below 70 parts per billion at all tested locations. Some of the Iowa sites recorded levels below 65 parts per billion; others are slightly above that level. The EPA does not anticipate that any counties in Iowa will violate the new ozone standard by 2025. Counties with the worst smog problems, including many in California, will be given more time to comply with the new ozone standards.

A group of Muscatine residents will be able to pursue their nuisance lawsuit against the Grain Processing Corporation, one of the area’s major polluters for many years. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the company’s appeal of a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court decision allowing the lawsuit to be heard in Iowa District Court. The company had argued that the federal Clean Air Act preempts claims like the ones the Muscatine residents are making. (You can see Grain Processing Corp v. Freeman, Laurie, et al on a long list of cases in which the Supreme Court denied certiorari.)

There is no guarantee that the Muscatine residents will win their nuisance lawsuit, but now a District Court will consider the merits of their case. Plaintiffs claim that the Grain Processing Corporation’s facility exposes locals to dangerous levels of air pollution, damages their property, and reduces property values.

UPDATE: Jason Liegois reported for the Muscatine Journal,

Environmental groups, including Clean Air Muscatine, supported the lawsuit, but business groups said regulation of air pollution should be left to state and federal agencies and not judged on a case-by-case basis.

“We are disappointed in the decision” GPC spokesperson Janet Sichterman, stated in an to the Muscatine Journal. “GPC, and others, strongly contend that regulation of air emissions is not the responsibility of the courts, rather the responsibility of the EPA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).”

Sichterman also pointed out GPC’s plan to transition from using coal to natural gas boilers, which would nearly eliminate sulfur dioxide and lead, among other emissions. The company is doing this as part of an agreement between the state and GPC, which also saw the company pay a $1.5 million fine to settle a lawsuit against the company filed by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. In addition, GPC is investing nearly $100 million in a dryer house project and other environmental control technology. […]

GPC, a subsidiary company of the Muscatine-based Kent Corp., operates a plant that turns corn kernels into products ranging from corn syrup to ethyl alcohol. A regional economic force, the company buys $400 million in corn from farmers annually and is one of the area’s largest employers. […]

Sichterman said the case is in the discovery phase, where it is expected to remain until at least the summer of 2015.

Late last week, U.S. Senator-elect Joni Ernst finally sent Governor Terry Branstad a letter resigning her seat in the Iowa Senate. The governor announced today that the special election to replace Ernst in Iowa Senate district 12 will take place on December 30. The district covers six southwest Iowa counties; a detailed map is after the jump.

From a voter turnout perspective, it’s not ideal to hold an election between Christmas and New Year’s, when many people are out of town. However, the real competition in Iowa Senate district 12 will be at the GOP special nominating convention. Even in a low-turnout environment, there is almost no conceivable way Democrats could win a district containing more than twice as many registered Republicans. Just one state Senate district has fewer registered Democrats than Senate district 12, and only three contain more registered Republicans.

At least two Republicans will seek the nomination for the coming special election: State Representative Mark Costello, who was first elected to the Iowa House in 2012, and Fremont County Supervisor Cara Morgan. I expect more people to throw their hats in. A few years ago, a special election in an Ankeny-based Iowa Senate district drew six GOP candidates.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I was surprised it took Ernst so long to resign her state senate seat. Her predecessor Kim Reynolds resigned more quickly after being elected lieutenant governor in 2010.  

The Des Moines Register published an amazingly ill-informed op-ed this weekend by Tom Quiner, a social conservative activist in Des Moines. Advocating for more chastity and less promiscuity, Quiner ignores some basic facts of life about sex ed.

State Representative Dwayne Alons passed away last night after a battle with kidney cancer, Iowa House Republicans announced today. First elected to the state legislature in 1998, Alons represented a staunchly Republican northwest Iowa district for eight terms and was unopposed in this year’s election.

A longtime farmer and retired brigadier general with the Iowa Air National Guard, Alons chaired the Iowa House Veterans Affairs Committee during the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions. This year the state legislature passed and Governor Terry Branstad signed into law several bills designed to benefit veterans and encourage them to settle in Iowa.

Among many conservatives in the Iowa House Republican caucus, Alons stood out for his steadfast belief in prioritizing social issues such as opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In June 2010, he entered unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats’ name in nomination for lieutenant governor, saying he was “speaking for a grassroots effort that has been going on since the beginning of Bob’s campaign.” Alons was one of five Iowa House Republicans to file articles of impeachment in 2011 against Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage. He repeatedly co-sponsored and tried to pass “personhood” bills that would ban abortion in all circumstances. Earlier this month, Vander Plaats’ organization The FAMiLY Leader gave Alons its first annual “Family Champion Award,” saying in its official statement, “When it comes to championing pro-family values in Iowa, nobody has stood stronger, longer, and with such grace as Dwayne.”

Since Alons was just elected to another term, a special election will be needed to choose a new representative in Iowa House district 4, covering most of Sioux County (a detailed map is at the end of this post). Governor Branstad will likely set a date for that election in the coming week, and the election will probably happen sometime in January. The only real competition will be at the GOP nominating convention, since the area Alons represented is the most heavily Republican of the 100 state House districts, with nearly ten times as many registered Republicans as Democrats.

After the jump I’ve posted a selection of tributes from Alons’ colleagues. I will continue to update as needed.  

I hope everyone in the Bleeding Heartland community had a good Thanksgiving holiday and is enjoying the weekend, however you prefer to celebrate. For those who still need to use up leftovers, I’ve posted a few ideas for soup here and my favorite thing to do with extra cranberry sauce.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Winter storms and “Black Friday” shopping have dominated newscasts for the past day or two, but the big story of the week was the St. Louis County grand jury declining to indict Officer Darren Wilson in connection with the August 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to lose a child in that way, knowing that the person responsible will never even stand trial. Whether or not you believe Wilson acted improperly, there was clearly enough evidence to indict him. Let a jury sort out whether he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt at a criminal trial. Signs point to the prosecutor not even trying to get an indictment. A New York Times graphic I’ve posted below shows “what was different about the Ferguson grand jury.”

Not surprisingly, there was unrest in Ferguson for two nights following the grand jury’s announcement. Most of the protesters there and elsewhere were peaceful, despite feeling intense anger. However, some looting and burning incidents provided fodder for Officer Wilson’s sympathizers to portray those who protested Brown’s death as “thugs” or worse. I mostly avoided social media arguments over the Ferguson case but saw many people talk about blocking or unfriending racists in their feeds. Spectra Speaks wrote this counter-intuitive post: “Dear White Allies: Stop Unfriending Other White People Over Ferguson.” It’s worth a read.

A common thread in many online arguments over Ferguson was someone reacting negatively to the phrases “white privilege” or “check your privilege.” For people who don’t understand what that means, Des Moines-based writer Ben Gran spelled it out:

White privilege exists for all white people, even poor whites.

“White privilege” doesn’t mean you get free stuff for being white. “White privilege” doesn’t mean that life is easy if you’re white. “White privilege” doesn’t mean that you get everything handed to you on a silver platter for being white.

“White privilege” means that there are certain HORRIBLE things that are MUCH LESS LIKELY to ever happen to you because you’re white.

For example, if my son were waving a pellet gun around in public, it is much less likely that anyone would call the police, much less likely that police would open fire on him within seconds of arriving on the scene, and much less likely that police would stand around not administering first aid afterwards. Which is not to say it’s advisable for anyone to wave a pellet gun around–only that doing so while white is much less likely to get you killed.

UPDATE: PBS published an outstanding chart comparing “several key details” of Officer Wilson’s version of events to testimony various witnesses provided during the investigation. The chart “doesn’t reveal who was right or wrong about what happened that day, but it is a clear indication that perceptions and memories can vary dramatically.”

About 15,000 undocumented immigrants living in Iowa will be eligible for deportation relief under President Barack Obama’s latest executive order on immigration, according to the Pew Research Center’s analysis. Iowa is home to an estimated 40,000 unauthorized immigrants (roughly 1.35 percent of the state’s population). Of those, Pew Center researchers estimate that about 5,000 people became eligible for deportation relief under Obama’s 2012 executive order regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Another 15,000 Iowans could receive deportation relief under the policy the president announced last week. A much larger number of Iowans stand to benefit from having the threat of deportation temporarily lifted from friends or relatives who are undocumented immigrants.

Click here to view a table showing how many people could be affected by the new immigration policy in all 50 states and Washington, DC. Jens Manuel Krogstad, a writer and editor at the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, and Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, collaborated on the new analysis.

Since last week, I’ve been wondering how unauthorized immigrants could find out whether the new executive order applies to them, without running the risk of deportation in case the answer is no. Madeline Cano, a community organizer with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, told me that the application process for deportation relief will begin in May 2015. She said the Administrative Relief Resource Center is “the most reliable resource” on the subject. Using information from that website, Iowa CCI and other advocacy groups created documents in English and Spanish that cover the basics on Obama’s executive action. I’ve enclosed those documents after the jump.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: At the end of this post I added excerpts from this Des Moines Register op-ed by Joe Henry, state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa.  

After a busy day, I sat down this evening to write my “Iowa reaction to Chuck Hagel’s resignation” blog post.

Only problem was, more than twelve hours after the news broke, I couldn’t find any Iowa reaction. No press releases, no statements on Facebook or twitter from anyone in Iowa’s current Congressional delegation or newly-elected delegation.

Does that strike anyone else as odd? I would have thought the defense secretary resigning after less than two years on the job, probably under pressure from the president, possibly over disagreement with the administration’s approach to Iraq and Syria, would be big news. Remember, Representative Dave Loebsack sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Senator-elect Joni Ernst has claimed to have a strong interest in our country’s Middle East policy, since her “boots were on that ground” now controlled by ISIS. Senator Chuck Grassley served with Hagel for years and will have a vote on confirming his successor at the Pentagon. Newly-elected Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01) and David Young (IA-03) both criticized the Obama administration’s policy in Iraq during this year’s campaign.

I will update this post as needed if I see some Iowa political reaction to Hagel stepping down. But at this writing, I got nothing.

This is why presidents bury big news during holiday weeks, when elected representatives and their staffers are out of the office.

Before adjourning for the Thanksgiving recess, the U.S. House approved three bills last week designed to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to function. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted for all three bills, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against them all. On November 18, representatives passed the “EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act” by 229 votes to 191 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill, “Among other provisions, the measure would require the Scientific Advisory Board, which consults the EPA on its regulations, to have at least ten percent of members from state, local or tribal governments. […] Democrats said the measure would hinder the board’s effectiveness and compromise its members’ scientific expertise.” Scientists are alarmed about the prospect of more industry experts on an EPA board.

On November 19, House Republicans and a handful of Democrats approved the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014” by 237 votes to 190 (roll call). This bill would block the EPA from adopting new regulations based on scientific research unless all raw data were publicly available. Its backers claim they are only trying to improve transparency at the federal agency. But peer-reviewed studies, particularly in the field of public health, often rely on confidential patient information that cannot be made public.

Andrew Rosenberg, who heads the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed both of these “attacks on independent science” by House Republicans. I’ve enclosed excerpts from his commentary after the jump.

Finally, on November 20 every House Republican and sixteen Democrats approved the “Promoting New Manufacturing Act” by 238 votes to 172 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported that this bill would ” enhance the Environmental Protection Agency’s reporting requirements for the number of pre-construction permits it issues under the Clean Air Act.”

In addition, the bill would direct the EPA to report to Congress each year on how it can expedite the permitting process. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the measure’s sponsor, argued it would promote manufacturing and increase transparency. […]

But Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the measure would weaken environmental protections by allowing permit applicants to avoid updated EPA air quality standards if the facilities are new or expanding, calling it “pollution amnesty.”

“This bill does not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding facilities, but it does weaken air quality protection,” Waxman said.

Marcos’ reporting indicates that the White House has issued veto threats against all three of these bills. Once Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate in the new year, Obama may get several opportunities to reject bad bills affecting the EPA.  

On Friday the U.S. House of Representatives filed a federal lawsuit challenging several aspects of how the Obama administration has implemented the 2010 Affordable Care Act. You can read the plaintiffs’ full case here (pdf) against two cabinet secretaries and the agencies they lead. The main arguments are that the Obama administration broke the law by delaying the employer mandate to provide health insurance, and also by providing certain payments to health insurance companies without having Congress appropriate those funds. The first point was expected, but the second argument surprised even those who have closely followed the political battle over Obamacare. Sarah Kliff explained the challenged payments and how they fit into the law. Ashley Parker reported for the New York Times, “If the lawsuit is successful, poor people would not lose their health care, because the insurance companies would still be required to provide coverage – but without the help of the government subsidy, the companies might be forced to raise costs elsewhere.”

In contrast, the legal challenge to delaying the employer mandate is more “symbolic,” as that provision of the Affordable Care Act will have gone into effect by the time this lawsuit works its way through federal courts.

House Republicans voted to authorize this lawsuit shortly before going on a long summer recess. Iowa’s four representatives split on party lines, with Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supporting the measure and Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed, along with every other House Democrat present. At the time, the lawsuit was perceived as House Speaker John Boehner’s way of deflecting conservative sentiment toward drafting articles of impeachment. At times this fall, Congress-watchers wondered whether the lawsuit would go forward, as two major law firms worked on the case for a while before declining to participate in litigation. A conservative legal scholar eventually took the case.

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

About a year ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to change the Renewable Fuel Standard, which regulates how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. Iowa elected officials from both parties expressed unanimous outrage, with Governor Terry Branstad and Representative Bruce Braley seeking out especially prominent roles in the battle against reducing the Renewable Fuel Standard. The very first week of the Iowa legislature’s 2014 session, state lawmakers unanimously approved a non-binding resolution urging the EPA to abandon its proposed rule.

The EPA proposal was supposed to become final in the spring of 2014, but political pressure forced a series of delays. Finally, this past Friday the agency announced “that it will not be finalizing 2014 applicable percentage standards under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program before the end of 2014.” After the jump I’ve posted reaction from Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Governor Branstad, and Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02).

The immediate impact will be more uncertainty for Iowans whose livelihood depends either directly or indirectly on the ethanol industry. But I would guess that every delay makes it less likely that the EPA will move forward with its original proposal, which could be construed as a victory for Iowa biofuels.

The reality is more complicated than such unusual political consensus implies. At an “all-day pepfest for ethanol” organized by the governor in January, Francis Thicke was the only person to offer the “other side” of the story. Thicke has a doctorate in agronomy and soil science from Iowa State University. His testimony asserted that it is “disingenuous to frame the debate on the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) as a struggle between farmers and Big Oil” and that “EPA’s proposed changes to the RFS are not that radical.” Thicke also pointed out, “Corn ethanol was always meant to be a stepping stone to advanced biofuels.” In this guest post, Bleeding Heartland user black desert nomad likewise questioned whether corn ethanol was really “under attack” and argued that “Vested interests want to double-down on endless growth in corn ethanol, but they have lost sight of the long game amidst a tangled web of conflict-of-interest.”  

Still catching up on post-election analysis. As you may recall, the final poll of Iowa’s U.S. Senate race by Selzer & Co differed greatly from all other polls taken during the final week of that campaign. Usually “outliers” are inaccurate, but in this case only the Selzer poll was close to predicting Joni Ernst’s final margin over Bruce Braley. This problem wasn’t limited to Iowa; as a whole, U.S. Senate polling in 2014 was less accurate than Senate polling in other recent election years. In three states, the polling average missed the final result by more than 10 points. Polls were skewed toward Democratic candidates in most of the competitive states.

Nate Silver argued last week that “herding” by pollsters contributed to errors in polling the IA-Sen race, among others. “Herding” refers to a pollster adjusting survey results to avoid releasing findings that look like an outlier. You should click through to read Silver’s whole post, but the gist is that as election day approached, IA-Sen polls converged toward a narrow band of findings, showing either a tied race or a small lead for Ernst. Random sampling error should have produced more statistical “noise” and varied results than that. Roughly a third of polls taken should have fallen outside that narrow band.

As I said, sampling error is unavoidable – an intrinsic part of polling. If you’ve collected enough polls and don’t find that at least 32 percent of them deviate from the polling average by 3.5 percentage points,5 it means something funny – like herding – is going on.

It will be interesting to see whether state-level presidential and Senate polls during the 2016 cycle show more variability, or whether pollsters continue the apparent practice of adjusting results to avoid standing out from the crowd. Silver notes that sampling error is just one of many sources of error in polls. Figuring out which people are likely to cast a ballot may be an even bigger problem.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

President Barack Obama delivered a prime-time televised address last night to explain his new executive order on immigration. The order would remove the threat of deportation for an estimated 5 million of the 11 million immigrants who came to this country illegally. After the jump I’ve posted the full text of the president’s speech, as well as reaction from some members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and several advocacy groups. I will update this post as needed.

Last year, Iowa’s U.S. senators split when the Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which has never come up for a vote in the U.S. House. Just before Congress adjourned for five weeks this summer, Iowa’s representatives in the House split on party lines over a border security funding bill bill designed to speed up deportations of unaccompanied children entering this country. Likewise, Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted for and Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) against a separate bill that would have reversed the president’s policy (announced two years ago) to suspend deportations of some undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children. Click here for background on those bills.

Note: King has been all over the national media the last couple of weeks, as journalists and pundits have discussed the president’s expected action on immigration. Over the summer, King raised the prospect that Obama could be impeached over unilateral action on immigration. But as you can see from statements posted below, more recently he has not advocated impeachment. Instead, King has called on Congress to defund the federal agencies that would carry out Obama’s executive order. Unfortunately for him, that approach is “impossible.”

Both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have expressed support for Obama’s executive order in the absence of Congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform.

Several Republican governors who may run for president in 2016 are considering legal action aimed at blocking the president’s executive order. Such a lawsuit could raise the standing of Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, or Indiana Governor Mike Pence with Iowa conservatives who are likely to participate in the next GOP caucuses. I am seeking comment on whether Iowa Governor Terry Branstad might join this legal action.

The Obama administration is already preparing a legal defense that would include precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on an Arizona law relating to illegal immigration. Federal officials “have always exercised discretion” in prioritizing cases for deportation.

Adoption has been a blessing to many of my friends and some relatives, so after the jump I’ve posted ten links to celebrate National Adoption Month.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. By the way, did you know that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack was adopted as a baby in Pennsylvania?

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

Today’s Des Moines Register featured a front-page article by Kathy Bolten about the massive racial disparity in arrest rates across Iowa. The piece contained new analysis and statistics on a longstanding problem in our state. I’ve posted some excerpts after the jump. This database includes detailed from 41 Iowa law enforcement jurisdictions that “arrest blacks at a higher rate than people of other races.” Iowa-Nebraska NAACP President Betty Andrews noted that when blacks and whites are detained for the same alleged offenses, police are more likely to charge blacks. The American Civil Liberties Union found last year, “Iowa has the largest racial disparity in the country of arrests in marijuana possession, with blacks being more than eight times as likely to be arrested than whites, even though whites use marijuana at about the same rate […].”

Speaking of double standards, MacKenzie Elmer reported for the Des Moines Register last week that on October 3, an Urbandale police officer let Joni Ernst’s spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel get away with driving drunk. Knowing that an arrest would get her fired, he let Hamel off with a warning. I’ve posted excerpts from that piece after the jump too. Raise your hand if you think a non-white drunk driver who initially lied to the police would have received the same sympathetic hearing from an Urbandale cop. Less than a month later, Hamel was arrested in West Des Moines for OWI. Fortunately, she didn’t kill or seriously injure anyone in the meantime.

Hamel’s arrest occurred on October 29, and she resigned from the Ernst campaign the following day. Surely reporters covering the IA-Sen race would have noticed that Ernst’s primary press contact was gone. Yet the Register’s first report on the incident appeared on the newspaper’s website on November 6 and in print the following day. Republican blogger Craig Robinson breathed a sign of relief: “Can you imagine the mess this would have created for Ernst if it had gotten out before Election Day?”

The delay fueled some suspicions that the Register held back the Hamel story until after the election. Given Ernst’s margin of victory, this news could not have affected the outcome, but getting knocked off message in the final days could have been significant in a close campaign. On November 7, I asked the Register’s political reporters Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble when they noticed Hamel was gone and when they found out why.

After getting no response for two days, I took the same questions to the Des Moines Register’s Editor and Vice President Amalie Nash. She responded promptly,

Thanks for asking the question. We published the story on Gretchen Hamel’s arrest as soon as we were able to confirm it. We were aware she had exited the campaign and inquired with Joni Ernst’s staff as soon as we found out she was gone. We were told she submitted her resignation due to a “drinking incident,” but the campaign declined to release additional details. We continued asking questions of other sources until we were able to find out where the incident occurred and get details from the police department. As soon as we got confirmation of her arrest, we published a story.

I was confused about why it took the Des Moines Register so long to confirm Hamel’s arrest. Details about the case were posted on the Iowa Courts Online website on October 30 and 31. Searching for Hamel’s name would have allowed any Register employee to confirm the arrest in seconds. Furthermore, a major newspaper presumably has a staffer checking arrest logs on a daily basis. When two WHO-TV reporters were arrested for drunk driving in Des Moines this past summer, the Register had a story up with their mugshots less than three days after the incidents.

Nash responded to my follow-up question by saying, “We have staff checking [arrest logs] daily in Des Moines, but not all surrounding communities on a daily basis.” Hamel was arrested in West Des Moines and booked at the Dallas County jail. Nash later elaborated,

We received the tip that she may have been arrested on an OWI last Wednesday [November 5] and were able to confirm and publish with details by Thursday [November 6].

As I noted, we don’t do daily stops at the West Des Moines Police Department to check arrest logs. We get over there as much as we can, but do not have the staffing to make a daily visit.

It seems unlikely that political reporters who talk frequently with Republican sources would not have heard anything about Hamel’s arrest until seven days after the fact. And if that’s true, I wonder why Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble didn’t just say so when I first asked them about it. In any event, that’s the official explanation from the Des Moines Register.

UPDATE: Some Iowa politics-watchers have asked me why it matters when the Register covered Hamel’s arrest. Although Ernst was winning the IA-Sen race regardless, it matters if anyone at any level in the Register’s newsroom held back a story to preserve good relations with and access to people around the senator to be.

The Des Moines rumor mill says other area reporters had the story about Hamel’s OWI but decided against running it, period. We can debate whether it’s newsworthy that a campaign staffer was driving drunk. But Register Editor Amalie Nash takes a different position: the incident “was newsworthy, which is why we published a story as soon as we learned of her arrest.” It is frankly hard to believe that no one in the newsroom knew about that event before November 5.

P.S. I forgot to mention that Annah Backstrom, the Register’s “content strategist for politics,” also declined to answer my straightforward question about when staff at the newspaper found out why Hamel was no longer working for Ernst.  

Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin rarely found themselves in agreement during a busy day on the Senate floor yesterday. A bill to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project fell one vote short of the 60-vote threshold to defeat a filibuster. The roll call shows that Grassley was among the 59 yes votes (all Republicans plus 14 Democrats), while Harkin was among the 41 Democrats who defeated the bill. Scroll to the end of this post to read Grassley’s statement on the failure to pass this measure. He backs an “all-of-the-above approach to meet the country’s energy needs and give consumers choice.” He does not address the reality that oil transported via Keystone XL would likely be sold to foreign markets, having no effect on domestic gasoline prices.

Although several of the pro-Keystone Democrats just lost their seats in this year’s elections, nine of them will continue to serve next year. That means future Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have the votes to overcome a filibuster of future bills on the pipeline. He won’t have the 67 votes needed to overcome a presidential veto, but Republicans have vowed to attach Keystone language to “must-pass” bills that President Barack Obama won’t want to veto.

Senators also blocked a bill that would have attempted to rein in domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency. Timothy B. Lee wrote a good backgrounder on the USA Freedom Act. The cloture vote failed by 58 to 42. Like almost all the Senate Democrats, Harkin voted for proceeding to debate the bill. Like all but four Republicans, Grassley voted to block efforts to reduce NSA spying on Americans. Members of Congress will revisit this issue next year, but I’m not optimistic any reforms will pass.

Side note: among the senators who are possible Republican presidential candidates in 2016, Ted Cruz voted for the USA Freedom Act. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio voted no. Paul opposed the bill because it did not go far enough, in his view; Rubio voted no because he thought the bill would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in this country.

Last week and this week, the Senate has moved forward on several nominees for vacant judicial spots on U.S. district courts. Harkin supported confirming all of the president’s nominees. Grassley voted against cloture on all of the nominations, but Republicans were not able to block any of them from a vote on the floor, because the 60-vote threshold no longer applies to most confirmations. (That could change when Republicans take control of the chamber in the new year.) On the confirmation votes themselves, Grassley opposed most of the judges nominated by the president, with one exception last week and another exception yesterday. Many expect judicial confirmations to stop happening when Grassley becomes chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but perhaps he will let a few non-controversial nominees through.

A bill reauthorizing the Child Care and Development Block Grant gained massive bipartisan support on Monday, passing by 88 votes to 1. Both Grassley and Harkin backed this bill. In a statement I’ve enclosed after the jump, Harkin explained how this bill “will expand access to and improve the quality of child care for the more than 1.5 million children and families that benefit from the federal child care subsidy program.” President Obama signed this bill today, and Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) attended the ceremony. He worked on the bill as ranking member of the House Education and Labor subcommittee that covers early childhood issues. I posted Loebsack’s statement below Harkin’s.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Note: Over the years I’ve written dozens of posts about Grassley and Harkin splitting on Senate votes. I expect that to end for the most part in January. If Joni Ernst votes differently from Grassley even five times over the next two years, I’ll be shocked.

UPDATE: Added after the jump some of Harkin’s recent comments on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Democratic Party has long championed issues of importance to working women, such as equal pay and ending discrimination in the workplace. Yet party leaders in the U.S. House just denied Representative Tammy Duckworth a proxy vote for this week’s elections on committee members. The official story is that granting a proxy vote to Duckworth (who is eight months pregnant and has received medical advice against traveling) would “set a precedent.” Another House Democrat had requested a proxy vote to allow her to attend a funeral.

What an absurd excuse. Going to a funeral instead of to your job is a personal choice unrelated to health or medical concerns.

Many people in the House Democratic caucus are unhappy about the decision and suspect the “slippery slope” argument was just a cover story.

Members and aides are privately seething over what they see as Pelosi’s latest attempt to stack the deck against Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., who is running for ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee against Pelosi’s closest friend and fellow Californian, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo.

And many members are concerned about the optics of not allowing Duckworth a proxy vote when Democrats are supposed to be the party that fights for women. Democrats have tried to make electoral gains by touting the “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds” economic agenda.

“Our party should be the party that stands up for women,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida said in a caucus meeting Tuesday morning, according to a source in the room.

A source also said that civil-rights icon and longtime Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis was fighting Pelosi’s refusal: “We will pay a price for not doing this,” he reportedly said.

KJ Dell-Antonia pointed out at her New York Times blog, “Pregnant women are protected by the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but protection against discrimination does not require accommodation.” That’s one reason why President Barack Obama “has repeatedly called on Congress to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (PWFA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed federal lawsuits recently against companies” that allegedly fired pregnant workers.

If Nancy Pelosi can’t see the simple logic here, House Democrats should elect a minority leader who does.

UPDATE: On Wednesday the House Democratic caucus chose Pallone as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Republicans had a lot to celebrate on November 4, and Democrats have plenty to worry about after the midterm election debacle.

But all is not rosy in GOP world either. If I were a Republican, I’d be particularly concerned about three things.

Two weeks after election day, political junkies like me are still processing what happened. Losing control of the U.S. Senate was the most obvious bad outcome for Democrats, but maybe not the most concerning one. The Senate map for 2016 gives Democrats a lot of opportunities to make up ground.

Five other political realities have been bothering me more.  

The Federal Election Commission rarely enforces laws against coordination between political campaigns and groups making independent expenditures for and against candidates. Meanwhile, outside spending is exploding to the point that in some races, independent expenditures dwarf money spent by the candidates.

As a result, each election cycle brings more actions that raise suspicions of campaigns and outside groups coordinating their work. In Iowa’s U.S. Senate race, Joni Ernst’s campaign magically knew exactly when to launch a very small ad buy to maximal effect–on the same day an outside group released a months-old unflattering video of Bruce Braley. Later on, a super PAC came into existence solely to run a $1 million television commercial targeting Braley, and that super PAC just happened to be headquartered in the same office as a senior consultant for Ernst’s campaign.

CNN’s Chris Moody reported today on a newly uncovered, brazen scheme to share information between campaigns and political advocacy groups. Click through to read his whole piece about Twitter accounts that communicated polling data from competitive U.S. House races.

At least two outside groups and a Republican campaign committee had access to the information posted to the accounts, according to the source. They include American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove; American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm for the House GOP. […]

The accounts that CNN reviewed were active in the months ahead of this month’s election, which gave Republicans their largest majority in the House since World War II and control of the Senate. They were live until Nov. 3 but deleted minutes after CNN contacted the NRCC with questions. […]

The tweets captured by screenshots stretched back to July, but the groups have communicated in this manner for four years, the source said. Staffers for each group deleted individual tweets every few months, so only the past few months of data were available when CNN first viewed the Twitter accounts.

Deleting online content minutes after a journalist starts asking questions sends a strong signal that these operatives knew they were doing something shady. Moreover, Philip Bump noticed that the American Action Network was one of the biggest outside spenders in the Congressional race in Florida’s 26th district. That race was the apparent focus of at least one now-deleted tweet containing polling data, which showed a very close race in FL-26.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

On Friday the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline by 252 votes to 161. The roll call shows that all 221 Republicans present supported the bill, including Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04). Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among 31 Democrats who joined them. Bruce Braley (IA-01) voted no, along with the majority of the Democratic caucus.

Ed Tibbetts reported for the Quad-City Times that Loebsack’s support was “a change from his vote on a similar measure last year.” But Loebsack has repeatedly voted for language backing construction of the Keystone pipeline, even if he has not backed every Republican bill on that subject.

Braley also supported Keystone XL at one time, but changed his mind after realizing that the project was not going to live up to promises made about jobs or the ultimate destination of the oil. Loebsack must know those facts too, but he chooses to hide behind talking points: “I was skeptical of side stepping the normal processes, but the jobs attached to building the Keystone Pipeline are too important and can no longer be tied to DC gridlock.” No doubt organized labor’s support for the pipeline influenced Loebsack’s vote.

The U.S. Senate will take up a similar bill on Keystone this week.  Democrat Mary Landrieu is pushing the legislation in a desperate attempt to save her Senate seat. Reality: she is going to lose next month’s Louisiana runoff election regardless of what happens with the pipeline.

The White House has “hinted” but not explicitly stated that President Barack Obama would veto legislation designed to force approval of Keystone XL. Obama commented last week,

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices. If my Republican friends really want to focus on what’s good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what we are doing to produce more homegrown energy.”

Even if the president blocks this attempt, Congressional Republicans will likely include Keystone language in various must-pass bills until Obama goes along sometime next year.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Blad Plumer’s backgrounder on the key arguments for and against the pipeline is a good read.

P.S. I disagree with Paul Deaton’s claim that Keystone XL is merely a distraction (“bright shiny object”). He argues that the environmental movement failed by targeting this pipeline instead of making a broader case against tar sands oil. Blocking this pipeline may not be sufficient to keep the tar sands oil in the ground, but it is certainly a necessary condition.

Awaiting sentencing for concealing payments received for helping Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, former State Senator Kent Sorenson has now tested positive three times for marijuana use, the Associated Press reported last week. Sorenson’s attorney had said the first positive test was caused by drug use prior to the plea agreement. In a more recent court document,

A lab toxicologist gave an opinion on Oct. 28 that Sorenson “reused marijuana prior to the collections on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21,” which would amount to a second violation of his release conditions, she wrote.

I’d like to hear from members of the Bleeding Heartland community who are familiar with the criminal justice system: would evidence of more recent marijuana use likely affect the sentence Sorenson will receive, even though the crimes to which he pled guilty are unrelated to illegal drug use?

Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu reflected on Sorenson’s “perfect hypocrisy,” since as a state senator he “voted to subject welfare recipients to random drug tests, at their own expense, even if they had no history of drug abuse.” I’ve enclosed excerpts from her latest piece after the jump.

Various states that have introduced drug testing for welfare recipients have found the tests “ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants,” and that welfare recipients use illegal drugs at rates significantly lower than the general population.  

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

The enrollment period for 2015 health insurance coverage began today and runs through February 15. Approximately “23,000 people nationwide successfully submitted applications to enroll or re-enroll in health insurance plans” today at Healthcare.gov. The Obama administration has set a target of 9.1 million enrollees for 2015. As of this past April, approximately 29,000 Iowans had selected a health insurance plan through the federal marketplace. But roughly double that number are eligible to enroll in a marketplace plan.

Democrats in the Iowa Senate advocated for creating a state portal where Iowans could buy health insurance under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. However, Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa House Republicans refused to go along, perhaps hoping that the health care reform law would be overturned in court or soon after the 2012 presidential election. So, Iowa formed a “partnership” exchange, whereby the state regulates insurance plans, but citizens purchase those plans on the website created and maintained by the federal government. That political decision may prove costly for tens of thousands of Iowans and millions of people in more than 30 other states.

On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that could end tax credit subsidies for all Americans who purchase health insurance plans through the federal website. The SCOTUS blog has compiled links on the King v Burwell case here. Jonathan Cohn provides a concise explanation of how the lawsuit could “wreck Obamacare” if a Supreme Court majority finds in favor of plaintiffs, who argue that subsidies should be available only to people who purchase insurance on state exchanges.

Brianne Gorod argues here that the Supreme Court should “recognize what the statutory text makes clear, and the structure, purpose, and history of the statute all confirm: tax credits and subsidies should be available on all exchanges, state-run and federally facilitated.”

Michael Cannon argues the opposite side here: namely, that the Affordable Care Act “makes no provision for subsidies in federally established exchanges.”

Chief Justice John Roberts is a highly political, results-oriented judge rather than a consistent legal theorist. Will he seize this chance to destroy Obamacare, or will he allow the current system to survive, as he did in the Supreme Court ruling that left most of the Affordable Care Act intact?

The outcome of King v. Burwell should not affect roughly 105,000 Iowans who have received health insurance coverage under the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, the compromise alternative to simple Medicaid expansion in this state. According to a report by the Iowa Policy Project, those people “previously were not eligible for Medicaid or who were enrolled only in the IowaCare program.” (IowaCare benefits were inferior to Medicaid in various ways.) Iowa hospitals have benefited from these policy changes, as they provided much less uncompensated care to uninsured Iowans during the first half of this year compared to the previous year.

UPDATE: Added after the jump excerpts from the Des Moines Register’s unsigned editorial published on November 17. The editors note the irony of conservatives who oppose the Affordable Care Act hoping that “activist judges” will help unravel it.

The Iowa Hospital Association was one of many health care organizations that advocated strongly for Medicaid expansion. A new analysis of care provided by Iowa hospitals shows why.

Scott McIntyre highlighted the key findings on the Iowa Hospital Association’s blog yesterday.

During the first six months of this year, the number of people hospitalized in Iowa without insurance fell by 45.7 percent compared with the same period last year, an IHA analysis has found.  The analysis is based on data collected from 101 Iowa hospitals from January through June.

According to the study, out of about 159,000 hospital discharges from January to June in 2014 and 2013, 4,445 patients were uninsured this year compared with 8,181 in 2013.

[…] Because of Medicaid expansion, in a six-month span, Iowa hospitals cared for fewer uninsured patients in all settings, including patients admitted for inpatient care as well as those seeking care at hospital emergency rooms and at outpatient clinics.  Similar results are being seen in other states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. […]

For the period January 1-June 30, overall inpatient admissions at Iowa hospitals declined 4.4 percent compared with the same period in 2013.  Within that decline, the number of uninsured hospitalized patients with no source of payment for their health care fell by 45.7 percent in 2014.

Additionally, fears that expanding coverage would make care so easily accessible that use of hospital emergency rooms would rise to unprecedented levels have not materialized, the IHA analysis found.  Total visits to emergency rooms increased less than 1 percent when comparing the six-month spans in 2013 and 2014, despite approximately 30,000 patients with new policies purchased through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

With more Iowans now insured, hospitals’ charity care losses fell 18.5 percent, yielding a total six-month improvement of $32.5 million.

During the state legislature’s 2013 session, Iowa House Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad refused to expand Medicaid, but agreed to create an “Iowa Health and Wellness Plan” as a compromise. The arrangement was more complicated and more expensive than simply expanding Medicaid as foreseen under the 2010 federal health care reform law. Nevertheless, the deal was well worth it and is benefiting tens of thousands of Iowans.  

Over the summer, House Speaker John Boehner called speculation about impeaching President Barack Obama a “scam” cooked up by Democrats. However, various conservative Republicans have raised the prospect too. As Obama prepares to issue an executive order on immigration policy this month, some House Republicans appear ready to push for articles of impeachment.

House leaders may never allow articles of impeachment to come to a vote. In July, they pushed (and House Republicans narrowly approved) a lawsuit against the president instead. That lawsuit has not gotten off the ground, though.

Today Representative Steve King (IA-04) warned of a “constitutional crisis” if the president grants “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants. His full statement is after the jump, along with some thoughts on how King and the rest of Iowa’s Congressional delegation might respond to an impeachment debate.

Iowa City received a perfect score and four other Iowa cities above-average scores in Human Rights Campaign’s new Municipal Equality Index. The LGBT advocacy group evaluated 353 cities across the country to see how inclusive their “laws, policies, and services” were for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people “who live and work there.” You can read more about the ratings criteria here. According to KCRG, the national average score was 59.

Iowa City was one of 38 municipalities to receive a perfect score of 100. Human Rights Campaign awarded scores of 86 to Davenport, 85 to Des Moines, 68 to Cedar Rapids, and 61 to Sioux City. Council Bluffs was not rated, but just across the Missouri River, Omaha received a score of 51.

KCRG noted in its report,

Iowa City did lose points in several areas, including not having transgender-inclusive health benefits or an ordinance requiring equal benefits from city contractors. However, the city also scored well in the bonus point system that was also part of the Human Rights Campaign’s rating.

You can view the detailed Municipal Equality Index ratings on Iowa City here, Davenport here, Des Moines here, Cedar Rapids here, and Sioux City here.

I don’t expect Governor Terry Branstad to replace many state agency leaders going into his sixth term, but before too long he will need to find a new head of Iowa Workforce Development. Although he will probably nominate Teresa Wahlert for that post again, the Iowa Senate will likely reject her confirmation. Here’s why:

1. Wahlert needs at least ten Democrats to join the 24 incoming Iowa Senate Republicans in order to be confirmed. She was confirmed in 2011 with only two votes to spare; two of the twelve Democratic senators who backed her then no longer serve in the Iowa legislature, and several who remain in the Senate have been critical of various Branstad administration policies implemented by Wahlert.

2. Wahlert presided over dismantling staffed Iowa Workforce Development field offices in dozens of communities, following a Branstad line-item veto that was eventually struck down by a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court.

3. Wahlert is a defendant in a lawsuit filed by former Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey. Depositions are happening soon in that case, following an Iowa Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.

4. Wahlert is also a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Joseph Walsh, the former Chief Administrative Law Judge for Iowa Workforce Development. Among other things, Walsh alleges that Wahlert “interfere[d] with the administrative judicial process in order to favor employers,” attempted “to illegally strip [Walsh] of his merit protection,” and eventually retaliated by removing him in “a political reorganization disguised as a budget layoff.”

5. Just this week, an arbitrator ruled that Wahlert “overstepped her bounds when she promoted a judge who had been demoted after complaints that she created a hostile work environment.” After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from David Pitt’s report for the Associated Press.

No wonder State Senator Janet Petersen has predicted that Wahlert would face a tough confirmation process if re-appointed by Branstad. He could save everyone a lot of time by choosing new leadership for Iowa Workforce Development.

All topics are welcome in this open thread. I’d like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers about the next race for Iowa governor. Winning that election needs to be a top priority for Iowa Democrats.

I remain 100 percent convinced that Terry Branstad will not serve out his entire sixth term. By the end of 2015, he will have set a record as the longest-serving governor in U.S. history. He is committed to “grooming” Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds to be the next governor. But Reynolds was almost unknown when Branstad selected her as his running mate. She had only two years of experience in the state legislature, all of it in the Iowa Senate minority. Before that, she had a long tenure as the Clarke County treasurer, a job that doesn’t allow politicians to build up a profile outside their home county.

Since Reynolds has no constituency in the Republican base, I find it hard to imagine she could win the nomination for governor campaigning from her current job. However, if she has a year or more under her belt as governor by the spring of 2018, she might have a fighting chance in the GOP primary. Even then, I don’t think other Republicans would give her a pass. Plenty of people have ambitions to succeed Branstad. I’ll be surprised if Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey doesn’t run for governor during the next cycle.

On the Democratic side, several state lawmakers could be credible candidates for governor. Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum considered it this past cycle but opted out for family reasons. I hope Jochum will take the plunge in 2018, as she would be a great candidate and a fantastic governor. State Senators Janet Petersen and Rob Hogg would also be excellent leaders and will probably also give this race a look.

UPDATE: Two-time candidate for secretary of state Jake Porter is considering a gubernatorial bid on the Libertarian ticket and sees both outgoing Secretary of State Matt Schultz and newly-elected Secretary of State Paul Pate as likely Republican candidates. Pate sought the GOP nomination for governor in 1998 after one term in the secretary of state’s office, so he could easily do that again. I find it hard to believe that the Madison County attorney position will give Schultz a good launching pad for a gubernatorial campaign, but anything is possible.

Porter also mentioned State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald as a possible Democratic candidate. Fitzgerald considered running for governor in 2013.

SECOND UPDATE: Lots of names being floated in the comments: Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, State Representative Peter Cownie, and State Senator Amy Sinclair on the Republican side; newly elected State Senator Chaz Allen or State Representative Nancy Dunkel on the Democratic side.

Erin Murphy, who covers Iowa politics for Lee Enterprises newspapers, has predicted a matchup between Jochum and Reynolds in 2018. I like Jochum’s odds there, a lot.

Associated Press reporter Ryan Foley reports that Republican strategists are “keeping a close eye” on Chaz Allen. I wonder whether that may be wishful thinking on their part, as they appear to have no chance of winning Iowa Senate district 15 as long as Allen is around. I think 2018 would be a little early for him to run for governor.

I should also mention that incoming U.S. Senator Joni Ernst will probably go all-in for Reynolds in the 2018 primary. Reynolds helped to recruit Ernst for the Iowa Senate and later for the U.S. Senate race.

THIRD UPDATE: Some Iowa politics-watchers expect State Senator Liz Mathis to run for governor in 2018. I don’t think she would run against Petersen or Jochum in a primary, though, and I consider either of them more likely to run than Mathis.

Many Iowans think of our state as a great place to settle down, thanks to relatively low unemployment, crime rates, living costs, and other quality of life factors (such as short commute times). After considering 44 criteria, the StateMaster website ranked Iowa the sixth best state to live. The latest Kids Count report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation ranked Iowa third in terms of children’s well-being.

So Danielle C. Belton’s article for The Root last week should be a wake-up call. For the roughly 102,000 Iowans who are African-American, this state doesn’t stack up nearly as well against the competition. In fact, Belton considers Iowa the fourth-worst state for black people.

If you’re black and into marijuana, avoid Iowa. The state arrests blacks at a rate eight times higher than whites for marijuana possession, despite the rate of drug usage between blacks and whites being about the same. For years, Iowa also held the title for locking up black people at a higher rate than any other state (it recently lost that crown to Wisconsin). While other states have large prison populations, what makes Iowa stand out is that it’s a relatively small state with a small population. In fact, its black population is only about 3 percent. Adding insult to injury, the poverty rate among African Americans in Iowa is 31 percent, compared with 11 percent for white Iowans.

The massive racial disparity in Iowa’s arrest and imprisonment rates has been one of the country’s worst for a long time. Way back in 2005, Bruce Dixon of the Black Commentator highlighted Iowa as one of the “ten worst places to be black” for this very reason. If Governor Terry Branstad wants to spend the next four years cementing his legacy as a leader who cares about all Iowans, he should try to do something about this persistent problem. I don’t know how to change the culture in local law enforcement or county attorney offices, but there’s no excuse for such a large disparity in whether people will be arrested or charged for the same unlawful behavior. Surely the governor’s staff could research, and Branstad could propose, policies Iowa can adapt from other states that have addressed this problem.

Bob Krause a former state representative and longtime activist for Iowa veterans, announced yesterday that he is exploring a challenge to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley in 2016. I’ve posted his statement after the jump.

Krause sought the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010 and finished second with just under 13 percent of the vote. Last year he considered running for governor in 2014 but declined to move forward, saying he had decided to run against Grassley instead.

Grassley announced last year that he plans to seek a seventh term in the U.S. Senate. He would be 83 years old in November 2016 election and 89 years old if he served out a full term. Nevertheless, he will be the prohibitive favorite against any Democratic challenger. I believe Grassley plans to retire in 2022 and hopes his grandson, State Representative Pat Grassley, will be well-positioned to succeed him by then. If Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey runs for governor in 2018, as many Iowa politics-watchers expect, Pat Grassley will likely leave the Iowa House to run for secretary of agriculture that year.

November 11 was first celebrated as “Armistice Day” in 1919 and became a national holiday in 1926. Congress changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day in 1954. Any thoughts about military service or veterans issues are welcome in this thread.

Earlier this year, the Iowa legislature approved several bills supporting Governor Terry Branstad’s Home Base Iowa Initiative. Some details are after the jump. Branstad himself is a veteran, and he tapped former U.S. Representative Leonard Boswell to co-chair the initiative.

The decline of veterans in Congress continues. Thirty years ago, about a third of the members of Congress had military experience. But only 81 of the 435 newly-elected members of the House of Representatives and thirteen of the 100 U.S. Senators have served or are serving in the U.S. military. No one in Iowa’s incoming U.S. House delegation has served in the military, although several have veterans in their immediate families. Outgoing U.S. Senator Tom Harkin is a veteran, and his successor, Joni Ernst, is a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard.

Seven of the 50 people who will serve in the Iowa Senate next year have military experience: Democrats Jeff Danielson, Tom Courtney, Dick Dearden, Bill Dotzler, and Wally Horn, and Republicans Bill Anderson and Jason Schultz (just elected to the Senate for the first time after several terms in the state House).

Of the 100 people just elected to the Iowa House, nineteen have military experience. The Republican veterans who were just re-elected are Dwayne Alons, Stan Gustafson, John Landon, Dave Maxwell, Kraig Paulsen, Sandy Salmon, Quentin Stanerson, Guy Vander Linden, Matt Windschitl, and Dave Heaton. Five Republican veterans were just elected to the Iowa House for the first time: Darrel Branhagen, Ken Rizer, Zach Nunn, John Wills, and Steve Holt. Four House Democrats who are veterans were just re-elected too: Dennis Cohoon, Jerry Kearns, Todd Prichard, and Brian Meyer. Retiring House Republicans Steve Olson and Tom Shaw are also veterans, as is retiring House Democrat Roger Thomas.

Many Iowa lawmakers have immediate family members who either served in the military or are doing active duty.  

Two days after being re-elected to a sixth four-year term, Governor Terry Branstad finally came out for raising the gasoline tax as part of a plan to increase transportation funding. He told journalists on November 6, “The timing is good because gas prices have dropped significantly. That makes it a little more palatable to the public.”

For years, a bipartisan group of legislators have been working on a bill to increase Iowa’s gas tax for the first time since 1989. The governor has left them hanging again and again and again. The issue is politically charged, since gas taxes disproportionately hit lower-income drivers and residents of rural Iowa. Joni Ernst switched from supporting an increase to opposing it as soon as she started preparing to run for the U.S. Senate. Legislative leaders have long made clear that a bill raising the tax would move forward only if at least half the members of Democratic and Republican caucuses in the Iowa House and Senate were ready to vote for it.

Iowa House Republican Brian Moore believes “this is the year” a gas tax increase will happen, because the issue will be on the “front burner” when lawmakers reconvene in January. Moore was vice chair of the House Transportation Committee. He and committee Chair Josh Byrnes have worked closely on this issue with Iowa Senate Democrat Tod Bowman, who leads the transportation committee in the upper chamber.

Arguably, 2015 will be a good opportunity for bipartisan cooperation, since it’s not an election year. However, I am inclined to think the gas tax increase will fail to gain broad support in either chamber. Many Iowa House Republicans are hostile to any tax increase, and what’s in it for House Democrats to stick their necks out on the issue? Meanwhile, several Iowa Senate Democrats will face tough re-election bids in 2016, and Senate minority leader Bill Dix has long been close with leaders of anti-tax interest groups. Gasoline prices have dropped to relatively low levels now, but they could bounce back up by the time lawmakers would be considering a gas tax bill in February or March.

If Branstad had campaigned on this issue, he could have claimed a popular mandate for raising the gas tax. But he didn’t, even when pressed on the issue during debates with challenger Jack Hatch.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Although the road use tax fund clearly needs more money, I would hesitate to raise the gasoline tax without strong “fix-it first” language in the bill. The lion’s share of additional revenue should go toward fixing roads and bridges that are in bad shape, not toward building new roads (or new lanes on existing roads) that we won’t be able to maintain adequately.

Last month, the Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll by Selzer & Co found that Hillary Clinton “remains the prohibitive frontrunner to win the 2016 Iowa presidential caucuses,” with support from 53 percent of of likely Democratic caucus-goers. No other Democrat drew more than 10 percent.

Among the Selzer poll’s larger respondent group of likely voters in the 2014 elections, Clinton led every Republican but Mitt Romney in a hypothetical 2016 matchup, despite having “upside down” favorability numbers (47 percent favorable/49 percent unfavorable). If Clinton leads most Republicans among the 2014 Iowa electorate, my hunch is she would have an even bigger lead among Iowans who vote in presidential elections.  

However, the “Hillary’s Iowa problem” narrative found voice in a feature by Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble for yesterday’s Sunday Des Moines Register.  

The Bleeding Heartland community has been discussing potential Democratic challengers in Iowa’s first Congressional district here, and I expect people will have equally strong views about who should run in IA-03. David Young will be a much tougher opponent in 2016 than Rod Blum, the surprise winner in IA-01. Democrats don’t have a voter registration advantage in the third district like they do in northeast Iowa. Young’s many contacts in Washington will help him raise a ton of money. Furthermore, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley plans to run for re-election in 2016 and will pull out all the stops to help his former chief of staff Young.

Among the 16 counties in IA-03, Polk County is the only place Democrats have any bench to speak of. Since more than half the registered voters in the Congressional district live in Polk County, it will be critically important for any Democratic challenger to run up the score there. President Barack Obama carried Polk by about 32,000 votes in 2012 but only gained about 51.4 percent of the vote throughout the Congressional district. So, I would guess that any Democratic candidate would need to win Polk County by between 25,000 and 30,000 votes to have a shot against Young.

No doubt many Democrats will be thinking about this race. State Senator Matt McCoy is almost a sure bet, since he was ready to run for Congress way back in 2002 and has said many times he would consider running after outgoing Representative Tom Latham retired. Having just been re-elected to a four-year term, McCoy would not have to give up his Iowa Senate seat to seek higher office in 2016.

State Senator Janet Petersen would be an excellent candidate, but she is up for re-election in 2016, so would have to choose between running against Young and seeking another term in Iowa Senate district 18.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

As a 34-year incumbent, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley will have a choice among leading the Senate’s Finance, Judiciary or Budget committees when the new Congress convenes in January. In a statement to the Des Moines Register yesterday, he said he will pick the Judiciary Committee.

“Oversight is too often overlooked as Congress focuses on new legislation […] So, anybody who knows my efforts in this area will understand that the Judiciary Committee’s work will reflect that sentiment. My goal is to promote transparency and accountability and restore the committee’s role as a true check on the massive and powerful federal bureaucracy.” […]

“The Judiciary Committee should not be a rubber stamp for the president,” he said. “However, as I have as ranking member, I will work to confirm consensus nominees. Factors I consider important include intellectual ability, respect for the Constitution, fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial temperament, and professional competence.

“Judges are to decide cases and controversies – not establish public policy or make law,” he said.

Sounds like under Grassley’s leadership, the Judiciary Committee will approve few, if any, of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees for a vote on the Senate floor. I would guess that only conservative-leaning judges will meet the new chairman’s standard for “consensus.” Other political observers have reached the same conclusion (see also here). In recent years, Grassley and his fellow Republicans blocked confirmation votes on numerous judicial nominees, including everyone the president picked for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regardless of qualifications. The standoff prompted Senate Democrats to sharply curtail the use of the filibuster on presidential nominations. Grassley and other Republicans warned at that time that someday they tables would be turned.

Taking a contrarian view, the non-profit Alliance for Justice argues here that “no one should give up on judicial confirmations in a Republican-controlled Senate.” I’ve posted excerpts from that piece after the jump, but it’s worth clicking through to read in full.

I also enclose below Grassley’s official comment on U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, whom the president has tapped to be the next attorney general. Grassley has been a vocal critic of outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. The Judiciary Committee holds confirmation hearings on attorney general nominees.

UPDATE: Added more comments from Grassley on his role and the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

I have several posts in progress about the 2014 elections and looking ahead to next year’s legislative session and even the campaigns of 2016. But for today, I wanted to share some nature links.

Good news: Iowa’s pheasant numbers “have rebounded to a six-year high,” according to a roadside survey the Iowa Department of Natural Resources conducted in August.

Hunting season is in full swing. The non-profit Save our Avian Resources has compiled a good list of lead-free bullets and ammunition for hunters. Toxic bullet fragments left in gut piles are a major threat to predatory birds including eagles.

I learned via Radio Iowa that the Iowa DNR has added more content on its website about large mammals in Iowa, including black bears, gray wolf, mountain lion and even moose (rarely seen this far south). This page on the DNR’s website is a great resource for all kinds of information about animals indigenous to Iowa.

Bad news: for most of this fall, nitrogen levels in the Raccoon River have remained above the standard for drinking water. Along with the Des Moines river, the Raccoon River is a major source of drinking water for more than a half-million central Iowa residents.

Bleeding Heartland’s Iowa wildflower Wednesday series is on hiatus until the spring (you can view the archive here). Guest diaries featuring Iowa nature photography are welcome any time of the year.

November 4 was a devastating day for Iowa Democrats, but let’s look on the bright side for a moment.

1. Democrats held the Iowa Senate majority.

Since 2011, the Iowa Senate has kept us off the disastrous path followed by Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states where Republicans control the trifecta. I’m disappointed that with a favorable map, Democrats weren’t able to expand their Iowa Senate contingent to 27 or 28. State Senator Daryl Beall was one of the good ones and will be missed by many. But a wave like that could have done a lot more damage.

For at least two more years, the Iowa Senate will continue to be a firewall against all kinds of horrible legislation that Iowa House Republicans will pass and Governor Terry Branstad would sign.

2. Iowa is no longer in a club with Mississippi.

All week, I’ve been reflecting on the many thoughtful and capable women who have been involved in Iowa politics during my lifetime. Not only Democrats, but also Republicans from Mary Louise Smith to Joy Corning to Mary Lundby and most recently, Mariannette Miller-Meeks. These women cared about public policy and ran for office to get things done. They weren’t recruited by strategists who thought they would be a marketable package. For this place in history to go to someone as ignorant and stage-managed as Joni Ernst feels very wrong.

That said, at least my children will not grow up believing that Iowans are too narrow-minded to elect a woman to Congress.

3. The Iowa Supreme Court is more likely to expand voting rights for thousands of non-violent ex-felons.

I had hoped Staci Appel would become Iowa’s first woman in Congress, but this wasn’t the year to be running against a guy who projects as a generic Republican.

The good news is that Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel will almost certainly be able to hear a lawsuit expected to be filed soon, which would challenge Iowa’s current law on voting rights. In April, a divided Iowa Supreme Court allowed Tony Bisignano to appear on the ballot despite a aggravated misdemeanor conviction. Three of the seven justices indicated that they were prepared to strike down a 1994 law defining all felonies as “infamous crimes,” which under the Iowa Constitution lead to the loss of a citizen’s voting rights. Three other justices disagreed with that opinion for various reasons and would uphold current law.

Justice Appel recused himself from the Bisignano case, but in other non-unanimous rulings he has usually joined the justices who believe not all felonies should disqualify Iowans from voting (Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Daryl Hecht and Bruce Zager).

Iowa Supreme Court justices tend to err on the side of recusing themselves, rather than hearing cases where there could be any appearance of a conflict of interest. Had Staci Appel won on Tuesday, I suspect Brent Appel would not have weighed in on any case affecting who might be able to vote to re-elect his wife. His participation could make the difference between a 3-3 split and a 4-3 majority ruling rendering the legislative definition of an “infamous crime” as unconstitutional. Thousands of Iowans with non-violent felony convictions might then be able to vote, as felons can do in most other states upon completion of their sentences.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post, I didn’t know the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa was planning to file a lawsuit today challenging Iowa’s restriction on felon voting rights. The ACLU of Iowa is acting on behalf of Kelli Jo Griffin, who was tried and acquitted for voter fraud earlier this year. After the jump I’ve enclosed the announcement, with more background and detail on the lawsuit.  

Judging by the comments in this thread, Bleeding Heartland readers are eager to discuss who should take on Republican Rod Blum in the next election to represent Iowa’s first Congressional district.

Blum should be a one-termer. Unofficial results show he beat Pat Murphy by about 7,000 votes (51.2 percent to 48.7 percent) in a banner year for Iowa Republicans. Democratic turnout should be much higher for a presidential election than it was this year. Blum’s record in Congress will also make him an easier target for the next Democratic opponent. He didn’t campaign like an extreme right-winger, but he’s about to start voting like one, which will hurt him with independents. The next Paul Ryan budget (which Blum will support) will include big cuts to entitlement programs. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Blum help House Republicans shut down the federal government again.

Who should be the next Democratic nominee in IA-01? My first thoughts are after the jump.

For the past two years, ten women have served in the Iowa Senate (20 percent of the chamber’s membership). That number will fall to seven or eight by the time the newly-elected legislature begins its 2015 session.

However, the number of women who will serve in the Iowa House will grow from 25 to 27 for the next two years. Follow me after the jump for details and a full list of Democratic and Republican women who will serve in the newly-elected Iowa legislature.

Following up on prospects for increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the Iowa legislature, all five African-American state representatives were re-elected to the Iowa House this week: Helen Miller (House district 9), Ruth Ann Gaines (House district 32), Ako Abdul-Samad (House district 35), Deborah Berry (House district 62), and Phyllis Thede (House district 93). Neither party nominated any African-American candidates for the Iowa Senate, which remains all-white.  

Iowans have yet to elect a Latino candidate to the state legislature. Democrats nominated Karyn Finn in House district 60 and Maria Bribriesco in Senate district 47, but both lost to Republican incumbents on Tuesday.

As has been the case since Swati Dandekar left the Iowa Senate in 2011, the Iowa legislature includes no Asian-American lawmakers. Neither party nominated any Asian-American candidates in 2014.

This week’s wildflower diary is dedicated to Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who may become the only Democrat to survive the 2014 Republican wave in a targeted U.S. Senate race.

New England Aster, known as Symphyotrichum novae-angliae or Aster novae-angliae, is native to most of the U.S. and Canada. The plant blooms in the late summer or early fall, and its many flowerheads stand out against the landscape with their purple or pink ray flowers and yellow or orange disk flowers. I’ve enclosed several pictures after the jump.

According to the Minnesota Wildflowers website, “New England Aster is one of the last flowers to bloom in the season.” On that note, Iowa wildflower Wednesday is going on hiatus until the spring. Previous posts in the series are archived here. Bleeding Heartland welcomes guest diaries featuring Iowa nature photographs at any time of the year.

This post is also a mid-week open thread: all topics welcome.

A lot of talented, hard-working Democrats lost last night. I can only imagine how exhausted and disappointed they feel. Among others, I’m thinking of Jim Mowrer. He fought the good fight against Representative Steve King, arguably better than King’s previous challengers, but the fourth Congressional district is too conservative for any Democrat to have a chance–especially in a Republican wave election.

Mowrer is so bright and capable, many Democrats will want him to stay involved in public service. Even Tom Harkin needed two tries to get elected the first time.

It occurred to me recently that Iowa Senate district 24 will be on the ballot in 2016. The district includes Boone, Greene and Hamilton counties, plus some areas in Webster and Story counties. A detailed map is after the jump. Boone County, where Mowrer grew up and now lives with his wife and children, contains more registered voters than Hamilton and Greene counties combined. Republicans outnumber Democrats in Senate district 24, but no-party voters outnumber both groups, and a lot more of them show up in a presidential year. Both Barack Obama and Christie Vilsack carried Boone County in 2012. Mowrer fell just short of matching King’s vote total in Boone yesterday, but he outperformed the top of the ticket by a lot in his home county. He also outpolled Bruce Braley in Hamilton and Greene counties.

Jerry Behn currently represents Iowa Senate district 24. Nancy Boettger’s retirement this year leaves Behn as the longest-serving Republican in the Iowa Senate, having won his first race in 1996. For about a year, he was minority leader, but he stepped aside shortly after failing to lead Republicans back into the majority in 2012. Stuck in the minority and locked out of caucus leadership for the foreseeable future, Behn may retire in 2016. His former right-hand man, Brad Zaun, has reportedly been telling people he won’t run for re-election again. Even if Behn seeks another term, Mowrer’s skill set and background would make him a stronger challenger than anyone Democrats have fielded against Behn lately. I’ve enclose Mowrer’s official bio below.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – I know it’s “too early” to be talking about 2016, but you wouldn’t be here if you weren’t a political junkie.

From the day Senator Tom Harkin announced plans to retire, I had a bad feeling about Iowa Democrats defending an open U.S. Senate seat in a midterm year when Governor Terry Branstad would be on the ballot. Harkin may not have known other retirements would hand several Senate seats to Republicans practically before the campaigns began. He couldn’t have anticipated that issues like ISIS terrorism and the ebola outbreak would dominate the media discourse during the last two months of the campaign. He probably didn’t expect tens of millions of dollars to come into Iowa, amplifying Bruce Braley’s every misstep (plus a bunch of made-up stuff) thousands of times.

I appreciate Harkin’s many years of service in Congress and don’t mean to begrudge him time with his family. But the bottom line is that if he had sought a sixth term, Republicans would not have fielded a serious Senate candidate in Iowa. Harkin would have cruised against a challenger on the “clown car” level of Christopher Reed.

In the coming days and weeks, plenty of Iowa Democrats will rail against tactical or strategic errors by Braley and his strategists. They’ll have a point, but in a year like this, none of it mattered. Candidates who started their campaigns in a stronger position and ran better races (such as Senator Kay Hagan in North Carolina or independent Greg Orman in Kansas) had the same result. Almost every competitive Senate race shifted toward the Republican at the end. Good grief, Senator Mark Warner nearly lost Virginia, which wasn’t even on the radar as a potential GOP pickup.

Instead of running for an open Senate seat in 2020 (a presidential election year), Iowa Democrats will have to find a candidate who can compete with the better-known and better-financed incumbent Senator Joni Ernst.

I’m making good on my promise to declare Ann Selzer a polling genius. Selzer & Co’s last survey of the Iowa Senate race looked like an outlier. No one else’s final poll showed Joni Ernst above 50 percent or leading Bruce Braley by more than 3 points. I was also skeptical because of the big swing toward Braley in Selzer’s mid-October poll, followed by a big swing against Braley in her late-October poll. But in the final analysis, Selzer’s last Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register called the race 51 percent to 44 percent for Ernst. At this writing, unofficial returns put her ahead by roughly 52 percent to 44 percent.

I still think it was irresponsible for the Sunday Des Moines Register to put Selzer on the front page saying the IA-Sen race was over, knowing that several other polls in the field at the same time had found the race to be a dead heat. However, Selzer called her shot and stood behind her data and methodology. I respect her for that.

I don’t have the same respect for everyone on the Des Moines Register’s politics team, but that’s a topic for another day and another post.

Polls across Iowa close in just a few minutes, and I’ll be updating this post with results throughout the evening. Any comments about any of today’s races, in Iowa or elsewhere, are welcome in this thread.

Many races on the east coast and in the Midwest have already been called. As expected, Republicans picked up the U.S. Senate seats in West Virginia, Arkansas, and South Dakota. Louisiana will go to a runoff in December. Jeanne Shaheen held the New Hampshire Senate seat for Democrats, but Kay Hagan may be in trouble in North Carolina, and in a potentially stunning upset, Mark Warner is behind in Virginia. He needs a strong turnout in the DC suburbs.

As state-level results come in, these are the key Iowa Senate races to watch, and these are the key Iowa House races to watch. For the last four years, Democrats have held a 26-24 Iowa Senate majority. For the last two years, Republicans have held a 53-47 Iowa House majority.

UPDATE: Polls are closed and further updates will be after the jump. News organizations called the governor’s race for Terry Branstad immediately.  

Thanks to Iowa’s non-partisan redistricting process, we have an unusually large number of competitive state legislative districts. In any given general election, depending on candidate recruitment, between one dozen and two dozen of the 100 Iowa House districts could be up for grabs. Democrats and Republicans spend big money on a much smaller number of districts; this year, only seven Iowa House races involved a large amount of television advertising. But the parties and candidates invest in direct mail and/or radio commercials in many more places than that.

Republicans go into election day favored to hold their Iowa House majority, which now stands at 53 seats to 47. Carolyn Fiddler has pegged seven “districts to watch” at her Statehouse Action blog, and in September, the Des Moines Register’s Jason Noble discussed five districts he viewed as “key to Iowa House chamber control.” I see the playing field as much larger.

Follow me after the jump to review 20 Iowa House seats that will determine control of the chamber for the next two years.

Caveat: most years, there’s at least one shocking result in an Iowa House district neither party had their eye on. I’m thinking about Tami Weincek defeating a longtime Democratic incumbent in Waterloo in 2006, Kent Sorenson defeating a Democratic incumbent in Warren County in 2008, three Democratic state representatives who had run unopposed in 2008 losing in 2010, and Democrat Daniel Lundby taking out the seemingly safe Republican Nick Wagner in the Linn County suburbs in 2012. Wagner had run unopposed in the previous election.

So, while I don’t expect any of the “favored” seats discussed below to change hands, I would not rule out a surprise or two. That would be excellent news for the stealth challenger’s party.

We won’t know the final early voting numbers until the Iowa elections are certified a few weeks from now, but after the jump I’ve posted absentee ballot figures based on the final daily update from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. Click here for previous tables going back to September 22.

As of yesterday, more than 455,000 Iowans had already returned early ballots to county auditors, a huge increase on total early voting in the 2010 midterm election. Registered Democrats have returned about 8,000 more ballots statewide than Republicans have. If Democrats identified and mobilized more independents to vote early (as happened in 2012), Bruce Braley could go into election day tens of thousands of votes ahead of Joni Ernst. Iowa Republicans typically perform better on election day than Democrats; how much better is open for debate, since the GOP encouraged many more people to vote early this year who previously voted on election day.

Statewide, about 33,000 Democrats, 19,000 Republicans, and 23,000 no-party voters had requested absentee ballots that county auditors had not received as of yesterday. Not every unreturned ballot represents an Iowan who will not vote. Some people mailed ballots that hadn’t reached county auditors by yesterday, but those will still count if they either arrive today or arrive before next Monday with a postmark on or before November 3. Other people will hand-deliver ballots to the county auditors today; those will be counted as long as they arrive by 9 pm.

While canvassing the last few days, I’ve met a bunch of people who plan to “surrender” their absentee ballots at the regular polling place today, then vote with a regular ballot.  

Happy election day to the Bleeding Heartland community. The weather forecast looks good for most parts of Iowa. Polls are open everywhere from 7 am to 9 pm. It’s too late to mail absentee ballots, but you can still hand-deliver completed absentee ballots to your county auditor’s office, or “surrender” you ballot at your regular polling place, then vote with an ordinary ballot.

Three new polls of the U.S. Senate race came out on Monday. Quinnipiac found Bruce Braley and Joni Ernst tied at 47 percent. (That pollster’s previous Iowa survey had Ernst leading by 49 percent to 45 percent.) Fox News found Ernst ahead by 45 percent to 44 percent. Public Policy Polling found Ernst ahead by 48 percent to 45 percent.

All three polls confirmed my belief that the Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll by Selzer & Co was an outlier. No other survey has found Ernst above 50 percent or ahead by such a large margin. If she does win the IA-Sen race by 7 points, I will declare Ann Selzer a polling genius.

Incidentally, the new polls also found Governor Terry Branstad ahead of Democratic challenger Jack Hatch by a smaller margin than in the Register’s final Iowa poll. Quinnipiac found Branstad ahead by 52 percent to 41 percent. That was similar to Public Policy Polling’s finding of Branstad at 54 percent and Hatch at 43 percent. Fox News found a bigger lead for the governor: 53 percent to 36 percent.

PPP has been the only firm to consistently poll down-ballot statewide races in Iowa this year. Its final poll found Democrat Brad Anderson ahead in the secretary of state race, with 44 percent support to 38 percent to Paul Pate and 3 percent each for Jake Porter and Spencer Highland. (Porter, a Libertarian, received about 3 percent of the statewide vote in the 2010 secretary of state race.)

PPP found State Auditor Mary Mosiman leading her Democratic challenger by 46 percent to 41 percent. State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald is ahead of his Republican challenger Sam Clovis by 48 percent to 38 percent, with Libertarian Keith Laube pulling 5 percent. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has a comfortable 51 percent to 33 percent lead over Democrat Sherrie Taha, with a minor-party candidate pulling 5 percent. Finally, Attorney General Tom Miller leads Republican Adam Gregg by 55 percent to 36 percent.

While canvassing in Windsor Heights and Clive on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I didn’t see any Republicans knocking on doors, nor did I see Republican campaign literature on doorknobs or front porches. Another Democratic canvasser in a different part of the state had a similar experience. I would like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers about what you’ve seen of the Republican “ground game” during the final days. As far as I can tell, the GOP has relied mainly on robocalls and perhaps live-caller phone-banking. Republicans paid for many robocalls in the final days.

Speaking of robocalls, many Democratic households in the third Congressional district (including mine) received a call Monday evening recorded by Senator Chuck Grassley, making the case for David Young.

Any comments related to today’s election are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – A testy exchange with a reporter about how President Barack Obama has handled the ebola outbreak underscored why Joni Ernst’s handlers didn’t want her sitting down with most Iowa newspaper editorial boards.

More than 430,000 Iowans have already returned absentee ballots to county auditors, but nearly 90,000 absentee ballots requested statewide are still outstanding. If you have not yet returned your absentee ballot, either “surrender” it tomorrow at the polling place (and receive a new ballot to vote like everyone else on election day), or hand-deliver a completed ballot to your county auditor’s office today or tomorrow by 9 pm.

Today is the last day for in-person early voting: all 99 county auditors’ offices are open until 5 pm.

I’ve enclosed below the latest data on absentee ballots requested and returned statewide and in each of Iowa’s four Congressional districts. All figures come from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. Click here for previous tables going back to September 22.

Iowa Republicans are up in arms today on social media, outraged that retiring Senator Tom Harkin said this about Joni Ernst’s campaign commercials (via Andrew Kaczynski):

“And there’s sort of this sense that, ‘Well, I hear so much about Joni Ernst. She is really attractive, and she sounds nice.’”

“Well I gotta to thinking about that. I don’t care if she’s as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rogers, but if she votes like Michele Bachmann, she’s wrong for the state of Iowa.”

To hear Republicans tell it, that is the most offensive comment ever.

People who oppose equal pay and longer paid parental leave for working women, who would force women to continue unwanted pregnancies, who think women’s employers should be able to veto insurance coverage of birth control, are in no position to play “PC police.”

Harkin’s meaning was clear: Ernst’s advertising has promoted her as appealing, while mostly avoiding substantive issues. But no matter how nice she may be or may appear in her own marketing, she supports policies that are wrong for Iowa.

By the way, Harkin has a perfect voting record on women’s rights issues and has always supported equal pay for women as well as reproductive rights and access to family planning. Republican hero Senator Chuck Grassley has opposed all of those policies at virtually every turn.

UPDATE: Inadvertently confirming that she wants this election to be about anything but substantive issues, Ernst went on Fox News Monday to distort what Harkin said:

“I was very offended that Senator Harkin would say that. I think it’s unfortunate that he and many of their party believe that you can’t be a real woman if you’re conservative and you’re female,” she told Fox News. “Again, I am greatly offended about that.”

Of course, Harkin neither said nor implied anything about a “real woman” not being conservative. He said Ernst supports policies that are wrong for Iowa. And as @SusaninIowa pointed out, it’s telling that Ernst wasn’t offended to have her voting record compared to Bachmann’s.

There was no need for Harkin to apologize for his remarks on Monday.

The Des Moines Register dropped a hammer on Iowa Democrats this evening with the latest statewide poll by Selzer & Co. The Register’s new poll finds Joni Ernst ahead of Bruce Braley by 51 percent to 44 percent, leading Braley in all four Congressional districts, and winning independent voters by 12 points. The poll looks like an outlier to me, compared to most other surveys that were in the field these past two weeks. No other poll has found Ernst above 50 percent this fall, and no non-partisan poll has found her leading Braley by more than four points. Of the ten other polls in the field during the last two weeks, two found Braley ahead by one point, two found the race tied, two found Ernst ahead by one point, and four found her ahead by margins between two and four points.

On November 5, either Ann Selzer will look like a genius, or a bunch of other pollsters (whose surveys found a close race here) will laugh.

The problem for Democrats is that the Register’s Iowa poll always generates more media coverage than any other poll. Even if this poll turns out to be an outlier, it could depress volunteers during the final days. A good GOTV program can overcome a one-point deficit but not seven points.

The Register’s latest poll found Governor Terry Branstad ahead of Democratic challenger Jack Hatch by 59 percent to 35 percent, one of the biggest leads any poll has found for Branstad. Selzer only polled on two other statewide races. Democratic Attorney General leads challenger Adam Gregg by 50 percent to 39 percent. The secretary of state race looks too close to call, with Republican Paul Pate ahead of Democrat Brad Anderson by 44 percent to 41 percent.

P.S. – There’s still plenty of time to enter Bleeding Heartland’s election prediction contest.

UPDATE: Below I’ve added excerpts from the Register’s analysis of the Selzer poll, along with the Braley campaign’s reaction, calling the Register poll an “outlier.”

SECOND UPDATE: Added more commentary on Senate polling below.

Political parties and outside groups are increasingly using tactics known as “vote-shaming” as a way to get unreliable voters to participate in the midterm election. Evidence suggests that “voter report cards” and similar techniques based on peer pressure can increase turnout.

Judd Legum reported for Think Progress yesterday that the Republican National Committee is taking this approach to a new and deeply dishonest level.

Screenshots of Facebook ads, promoted by the official Facebook page of the Republican National Committee feature an ominous message: “NOTICE: All Voting Is Public.” The ad tell voters that “In a few months, Iowa will release the list of individual who voted in this election.” Most troublingly, the ad includes an [aerial] view of a neighborhood with checkmarks indicating that “These People Voted GOP.”

Click through to view a screenshot of these Facebook ads. Five houses on the same street in what looks like a wealthy suburban area have check marks near a badge reading “THESE PEOPLE VOTED GOP.” The one house marked with an “X” is labeled, “DIDN’T VOTE DON’T LET THIS BE YOU.”

Anyone can purchase a voter file from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office that shows who has cast ballots in any recent election. But as Republicans know very well, that information does not reveal how any given individual voted. The Facebook ad is crafted carefully: text the RNC posted above its photo refers accurately to how “Iowa will release the list of individuals who voted in this election.” But the misleading graphics in the photo (“THESE PEOPLE VOTED GOP”) are more eye-catching.

It’s not the biggest lie Iowa Republicans have been pushing this year for political gain, but how disgraceful to stoke fears that neighbors may know whether you voted for the “right” candidates. No wonder the Iowa GOP did not respond to Legum’s request for comment.

I’m interested to know how many states the RNC is targeting with these Facebook ads.

Early voting by Iowa Democrats, Republicans, and no-party voters already exceeds the number of absentee ballots cast by each of those groups in the 2010 general election. Depending on how many more ballots are returned in time to be counted, this year’s early vote may exceed 40 percent of the electorate.

Democrats lead in absentee ballots returned by about 7,000 statewide but have many more ballots outstanding (about 47,000) than do Republicans (about 30,000). Each 11,000 to 12,000 ballots left on the table represents roughly 1 percent of the expected statewide vote.

Although Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley have asked the U.S. Postal Service to put legible postmarks on all absentee ballots, I would not risk dropping a ballot in the mail now. If it arrives after election day with no postmark, it will not be counted. Safer to either take your ballot to the post office and demand a postmark on the envelope, or hand-deliver the envelope to the county auditor’s office.

I’ve enclosed below the latest data on absentee ballots requested and returned statewide and in each of Iowa’s four Congressional districts. All figures come from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. Click here for previous tables going back to September 22.

The big question remains: which party has mobilized more voters who otherwise would not have participated in the midterm election? A new Des Moines Register analysis suggests Democrats have only a “thin edge” in early voting. But Nate Cohn of the New York Times’ “Upshot” blog has a different take:

In Iowa, the overall early vote is nearly tied in a state where Democrats usually fare well in the early vote.

But Democrats insist that the Republicans are merely banking voters who would have voted on Election Day anyway, and back it up with data showing a lead among people who didn’t vote in 2010, 40 to 29 percent. If the G.O.P. is faring better in the early vote by attracting voters who would have turned out anyway, then they diminish their ability to fare as well on Election Day as they have in the past.

U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley issued a joint letter today to U.S. Postal Service district managers in Iowa, “urging them to ensure that ballots receive legible postmarks between now and Election Day.” I’ve posted the full statement after the jump.

Absentee ballots may be counted in Iowa if they are postmarked on or before the day before election day. However, many ballots do not receive a postmark, so there is no way to prove they were mailed in time. With more than 100,000 absentee ballots requested but not yet returned to Iowa county auditors, there’s a real risk that over the next several days, thousands of Iowans will mail ballots that end up going uncounted.

I applaud Harkin and Grassley for speaking out on this important problem but wish they had sent their letter a few weeks earlier. I don’t know whether there is time for the Postal Service district managers to enact this policy change and get the word out to all staff.

At this point, the safest ways to return an absentee ballot are 1) hand-deliver to the county auditor’s office, or 2) take to the post office and insist that a postmark be put on the envelope.

Time for another Bleeding Heartland election prediction contest. To enter, post your guesses as comments in this thread before 7 am on Tuesday, November 4. Predictions submitted by e-mail or social media will not be considered. It’s ok to change your mind, as long as you post your revised predictions as an additional comment in this thread before the deadline.

No money’s at stake here, just bragging rights like those enjoyed by Bleeding Heartland users ModerateIADem (twice), American007, Johannes, and tietack. This isn’t “The Price is Right”; the winning answers will be closest to the final results, whether they were a little high or low.

Even if you have no idea, please try to take a stab at answering every question. We had no clear winner in this year’s primary election prediction contest; the best guessers on some races were way off on other races.

Minor-party or independent candidates are on the ballot for some races, so the percentages of the vote for Democratic and Republican nominees need not add up to 100. You can view the complete list of candidates for federal and state offices in Iowa here (pdf).

Roughly 50,000 registered Iowa Democrats, 35,000 Republicans, and 35,000 no-party voters have requested but not yet returned absentee ballots. The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office sent out a press release yesterday on deadlines for returning those ballots. Excerpt:

Absentee ballots returned by mail and received in the county auditor’s office by 9 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4 are eligible for counting. Absentee ballots returned by mail and received by the auditors office after the polls close must be postmarked by November 3 or earlier and be received by the auditor before noon on Monday, November 10.  Mail is not always postmarked so it is important to return the ballot as soon as possible. Absentee ballots can also be returned to the county auditor’s office in person no later than 9 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4.

I would not simply drop a ballot in the mail at this point. The risk of it arriving late without a postmark is too great. Either take it to the post office and demand a postmark on the envelope, or hand-deliver it to the county auditor’s office.

If you make a mistake while filling out your absentee ballot, or your ballot gets lost or damaged, or you realize after mailing that you forgot the secrecy or affidavit envelopes, call your county auditor’s office. In many cases you will be able to come in, sign a form to void your original absentee ballot, and fill out a new absentee ballot right there.

I’ve enclosed below the latest data on absentee ballots requested and returned statewide and in each of Iowa’s four Congressional districts. All figures come from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. Click here for previous tables going back to September 22.

The peak blooming period for today’s featured plant is in late summer, but we’ve had an unseasonably warm October across Iowa, so I decided to run with it anyway. Great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica) is native to most of North America east of the Rockies. I enclose several pictures after the jump.

This post is also a mid-week open thread: all topics welcome.

2014 is shaping up to be the year of idiotic plagiarism accusations in political campaigns. Here’s a good example of real plagiarism: “Senator John Walsh of Montana took most of a 2007 final paper required for his master’s degree from the United States Army War College from other sources without proper attribution.”

In contrast, these common political actions are not plagiarism:

1. Having boilerplate language on a campaign website.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has alleged in a television commercial that IA-03 candidate Staci Appel was “caught plagiarizing 20 times.” No, an early version of her campaign website included political statements about the minimum wage and other issues that were similar to other Democratic campaign websites. That is no different from dozens of Republican candidates parroting the same talking points about how the tax code should be “flatter, fairer, and simpler,” or responding to a question about climate change with identical “I’m not a scientist” rhetoric.

2. Introducing similar or companion legislation.

Today the Republican Party of Iowa is pushing a bogus story about Bruce Braley “plagiarizing” a bill by Senator Harry Reid. Members of Congress introduce companion legislation to bills from the other chamber all the time. Republicans in dozens of state legislatures introduce bills that are taken verbatim from American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drafts.

3. Sending out a newsletter composed largely by staff.

Today Andrew Kaczynski and Ilan Ben-Meir reported for Buzzfeed, “Passages of local paper pieces under [Joni] Ernst’s name appear to have been copied word-for-word from templates sent as guidelines to Republican members of the Iowa Senate.” What they describe is standard operating procedure for Iowa lawmakers in both parties. While some representatives and senators write their own weekly newsletters, many others rely on text prepared by legislative staff. Sometimes local newspapers will reproduce all or part of those newsletters. I don’t consider that “plagiarism.”

Some days it’s hard to see how our political discourse could get any more stupid or dishonest.

P.S. Speaking of dishonest, look how Joni Ernst’s hired gun Daid Kochel re-tweeted my comment about common practice in the Iowa legislature, just minutes after he pushed the Iowa GOP’s bogus plagiarism claims about Braley’s bill.

UPDATE: Political reporter Gavin Aronsen comments, “Not sure I agree on point 3, once it’s printed in a newspaper. Editors should reject that if it’s not words of stated author.” Point taken. But I blame lazy editors desperate for copy for that mistake, not politicians. Newspapers should not run a bulletin under an elected official’s byline if other lawmakers sent out virtually identical text.

State Auditor Mary Mosiman, who in her previous job stood by and watched other people collect salaries for doing no work, has doubled down on her defense of the status quo in state auditing procedures.

Highlights from Thomas Geyer’s report for the Quad-City Times are after the jump, along with state auditor candidate Jon Neiderbach’s reaction to the incumbent’s “reckless comments.”

As of yesterday, the number of registered Republicans who had returned absentee ballots to county auditors (138,362) exceeds the total early Republican vote in the 2010 Iowa general election (136,243). Ballots returned by registered Democrats and no-party voters are likely to exceed 2010 early voting levels today or tomorrow.

Statewide, Democrats have returned about 5,000 more absentee ballots to county auditors than Republicans have, but they also have a lower return rate. Roughly 56,000 Democrats have requested but not yet returned absentee ballots, compared to about 38,000 ballots outstanding for Republicans and 38,000 outstanding for no-party voters. Every 11,000 to 12,000 ballots left on the table represents roughly 1 percent of the expected total vote in the 2014 general election.

For Iowans who have not yet returned their absentee ballots, the safest options are to hand-deliver the completed ballot to the county auditor’s office, or to take it to the post office and demand a postmark for the envelope. Late-arriving mailed ballots with no postmark will not be counted.

Iowans cannot turn in completed absentee ballots at their regular polling place on election day. However, they may go to their precinct polling place next Tuesday, surrender their unreturned absentee ballot to poll workers, and receive a new ballot to fill out like other election-day voters.

I’ve enclosed below the latest data on absentee ballots requested and returned statewide and in each of Iowa’s four Congressional districts. All figures come from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. Click here for previous tables going back to September 22.

The Iowa secretary of state campaign looks like a nail-biter. Neither Democrat Brad Anderson nor Republican Paul Pate has had a lead outside the margin of error in any public poll I’ve seen. The new Loras College statewide survey shows Anderson barely ahead of Pate by 39.9 percent to 39.0 percent. That survey did not include the other two candidates running for secretary of state, even though Libertarian Jake Porter received about 3 percent of the statewide vote in 2010.

When Anderson and Pate appeared jointly on Iowa Public Television earlier this month (in a “job interview” that resembled a debate), major differences between the candidates were apparent. Pate would continue outgoing Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s crusade for a voter ID law, an expensive “fix” to a non-existent problem, which risks disenfranchising voters. Anderson proposes several ideas to improve the voter file and maintain security, without depressing turnout.

During the same “Iowa Press” program, Pate hedged on whether former employees of the Secretary of State’s Office should pay back the state for salary and benefits they received for doing no work. I’ve enclosed that exchange after the jump. I would guess that 90 percent of Iowans agree with Anderson: it’s a “no-brainer” that these people should pay back the money.

Pate’s campaign website is mostly devoid of policy ideas. His case to voters is simple: he has more experience, having served as secretary of state before, he supports voter ID requirements, and he is a “non-partisan leader,” as opposed to his “partisan political operative” opponent. Never mind that Pate once sought the position of Iowa GOP chair.

Compared to Pate, Anderson has proposed more specific ideas for improving the work of the Secretary of State’s Office. (For that matter, so has Porter.) Anderson’s campaign website includes not only ideas to make Iowa number one in voter turnout, but also proposals to make it easier to start a business, create a new registry for veteran-owned businesses, improve the integrity of the Iowa caucuses, make it easier for overseas and military voters to cast ballots, and most recently, an address confidentiality program that would allow survivors of domestic abuse or sexual violence “to register to vote, cast a ballot, and go about daily life without fear for safety.” (Pate’s campaign quickly announced that the Republican also supports “Safe at Home” measures.)

Anderson and Pate are still running the television and radio commercials Bleeding Heartland covered here. In addition, a group I’d never heard of called iVote has spent just under $30,000 to run a tv ad opposing Pate. Democratic strategists created the new political action committee to get involved in several secretary of state races. When I saw iVote’s spot for the first time during a lunchtime local newscast, the unorthodox style caught my attention. I’ve enclosed the video and transcript below. The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s fact-checker rated this ad “true.”

Speaking of the Gazette, that newspaper endorsed Anderson today, saying he would offer “a clean break” from the “sorry chapter” of Schultz’s tenure as secretary of state. Click through to read the whole editorial, or scroll own to read excerpts. How embarrassing for Pate not to get the support of his hometown newspaper. He’s been a local business owner for decades as well as a former Cedar Rapids mayor and former state senator representing part of Linn County.  

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland posted a thread dedicated to the Iowa Senate races. Democrats go into the election with a 26 to 24 majority in the upper chamber, where 25 of the 50 districts are on the ballot this year. Only a handful of those races appear to be competitive.

Carolyn Fiddler, who blogs about state legislative races here, has rated the Iowa Senate as a “Tossup/Tilt D” chamber on her list of state legislative chambers most likely to flip. In those terms, I consider the Iowa Senate a “lean D” chamber, as a lot has to break for Republicans to get them to 26 seats.

In theory, Democrats are defending six seats: five incumbents have challengers, and one Democratic-held seat is open. In reality, Republicans have failed to mount strong challengers against Amanda Ragan in Senate district 27 or Tod Bowman in Senate district 29. Moreover, the Iowa GOP is not putting significant money behind Jeremy Davis, its challenger in Senate district 23. Davis has just started running some positive radio ads in the Des Moines area, whereas radio commercials were launched more than a month ago in the targeted races.

The Democratic incumbent who appears to be most at risk is Daryl Beall in Senate district 5. His territory changed quite a bit with redistricting, and Mitt Romney carried it in the 2012 presidential election. Republicans are also making a strong play for the open Senate district 15. Both parties have been running radio ads since late September, but as of last week only Democrats were on television in Senate district 15, with a positive spot about Chaz Allen. To a lesser extent, Republicans have put money behind Brian Schmidt’s campaign in Senate district 49, but the demographics of that district favor incumbent Senator Rita Hart.

Republicans could win two of the Democratic-held Iowa Senate seats, but that won’t get them to the magic 26 unless they hold all of their current seats. Two of those are heavily targeted. In the open Senate district 39, both parties have been advertising on the radio for more than a month. Democrats have invested far more in television ads (all positive for Kevin Kinney) than Republicans have for Mike Moore.

The other Republican-held Senate seat most at risk appears to be Senate district 41. By voter registration and top of the ticket performance, this should be a Democratic seat. The best thing going for State Senator Mark Chelgren is that Mariannette Miller-Meeks is the Republican nominee in Iowa’s second Congressional district. She’s an underdog against Representative Dave Loebsack, but a strong turnout for her in the Ottumwa area would benefit Chelgren, as it did in 2010.

Carolyn Fiddler encouraged readers to keep an eye on Senate district 47, but even though Barack Obama carried that district in 2012, it would be an upset for Maria Bribriesco to defeat incumbent Roby Smith. That said, Democrats have hit SD-47 with quite a bit of direct mail.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that surrogates have gotten involved with many of these races. Senator Tom Harkin headlined an October 27 rally in Fort Dodge for Beall. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley did an event earlier this month for Steve Siegel in Senate district 41. On the Republican side, Governor Terry Branstad has been in Ottumwa recently to help Chelgren and plans events for the GOP candidates in Senate districts 15 and 39 soon.

SECOND UPDATE: Tim Kraayenbrink, the GOP challenger to Beall in Senate district 5, has just started running a positive television commercial in the Des Moines market. The gist is that he’s a small business owner, unlike “career politicians in Des Moines.” I haven’t caught it on tape yet but am fairly certain he did not mention Beall by name.