Why Iowans need job-protected paid leave

Austin Frerick, an Iowa native and economist who has worked at the Institute for Research on Poverty and the Congressional Research Service, makes the case for job-protected paid leave. You can read his past writing at Bleeding Heartland here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Kristen Corey of Ankeny remembers the moment clearly. The moment she realized that things were different for women in the working world than for men.

Twenty-five and newly married, she just started a new job and asked her human resource professional about the company’s maternity policy. The HR person looked at her and with a short laugh answered, “Well, you just use your accrued sick and vacation time.” Kristen responded, but “what if I get pregnant in the next few months?”

To that the HR person quipped, “Don’t get pregnant.”

Continue Reading...

Quinnipiac finds tied race in Iowa, with big lead for Clinton among early voters

Hillary Clinton has gained ground in Iowa since before the presidential debates, according to Quinnipiac’s new survey of 791 likely Iowa voters (margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points). In a four-way race, Clinton and Donald Trump are tied at 44 percent each, with 4 percent of respondents supporting Libertarian Gary Johnson and 1 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Trump leads Clinton by 47 percent to 46 percent in a head to head matchup. A month ago, Quinnipiac found Trump ahead 44-37 in the four-way race and 50-44 against Clinton alone.

Quinnipiac’s polling memo highlighted a few findings from the cross-tabs. The most heartening for Democrats: “Clinton leads 61 – 27 percent among Iowa likely voters who have cast ballots.” That’s surprising, considering that only 27 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 30 percent as Republicans, and 37 percent as independents.

The Iowa Democratic early vote lead is smaller than it was at the same point in the 2012 campaign. As of October 27, Democrats had requested 45,684 more ballots and had cast 40,681 more ballots than Republicans. For Clinton to be 30-plus points ahead among early voters, as Quinnipiac’s data indicate, she would have to be winning a large share of early votes cast by Iowans affiliated with neither party. No-party voters had requested 116,737 absentee ballots as of October 27; 75,819 of those ballots had already arrived at county auditors’ offices. President Barack Obama’s campaign did a much better job of mobilizing no-party supporters here in 2012; Iowa Democrats hope to repeat that performance.

More from the polling memo:

In Iowa, Clinton is less disliked by likely voters, with a negative 40 – 55 percent favorability rating, compared to Trump’s negative 36 – 59 percent.

Iowa men back Trump 51 – 35 percent, while women back Clinton 52 – 37 percent. Republicans go to Trump 88 – 6 percent, while Democrats back Clinton 88 – 9 percent. Independent voters are split 40 – 40 percent, with 6 percent for Johnson.

White college-educated respondents narrowly favored Clinton, 47-43, while whites without a college degree split 48-38 for Trump.

Dan Guild pointed out last month that third-party candidates tend to lose ground after the presidential debates. The Q-poll suggests that pattern is repeating this year; in last month’s survey, 10 percent of respondents supported Johnson and 2 percent Stein.

Continue Reading...

Iowa GOP spends big money promoting House candidate with unpaid federal taxes

Fighting for his political life in a district that’s trending away from him, Iowa House Majority Leader Chris Hagenow has approved hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign spending on television commercials. Two spots have trashed his Democratic challenger Jennifer Konfrst over accounting errors that led to some overdue taxes. The first Hagenow hit piece was blatantly false. The second ad, now in heavy rotation on Des Moines stations, is more narrowly focused on a tax lien put on Konfrst’s home more than a decade ago.

Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann portrayed Konfrst as unfit to serve because she made a mistake calculating child care expenses. After hiding from early media inquiries about his commercial, Hagenow defended the ad last week, telling the Des Moines Register, “One of the biggest jobs we deal with (in the Legislature) is spending taxpayers’ dollars […] And our focus has always been to handle that as responsibly as possible.”

So why did House Republican leaders give their blessing for the Iowa GOP to spend more than $93,000 promoting Shannon Lundgren, a House candidate with a much larger federal tax liability that “remains unpaid”?

Continue Reading...

"The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad, bad judge"

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during a January 28, 2013 book promotion at Southern Methodist University

Thanks to Bill from White Plains for another close look at the U.S. Supreme Court. His first post in this series is here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

At the end of the second Presidential debate, held on October 9, 2016 in St. Louis, Missouri, and at the outset of the third (and final) Presidential debate, held October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada, both candidates – New York Republican Businessman Donald John Trump and former Democratic New York senator – and former United States Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton provided their “litmus tests” for their nominees to the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading...

Iowa wildflower Wednesday: Blue wood aster (Heart-leaved aster)

Long after most woodland or prairie wildflowers have gone to seed, many aster species are blooming well into the autumn across Iowa. One of the prettiest is blue wood aster (Symphyotrichum cordifolium), also known as heart-leaved aster, common blue wood aster, or broad-leaved aster.

This plant is native to most of North America east of the Rocky Mountains and thrives in “moist to dry deciduous woodlands, woodland borders, areas adjacent to woodland paths, thinly wooded bluffs, shaded areas along streambanks, and rocky wooded slopes.” I took the enclosed pictures in mid-October along the driveway that leads from 45th Street to the Bergman Academy (old Science Center of Iowa building) in Des Moines.

Continue Reading...

Coalition will work to expand felon voting rights in Iowa

Iowa’s leading civil rights advocacy groups have joined forces, fighting for changes that would allow thousands of Iowans who have completed felony sentences to “be full members of society and exercise their right to vote.” The seventeen groups in the new Restore Fair Voting Rights in Iowa coalition include the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, the Iowa-Nebraska NAACP, and the League of Women Voters of Iowa.

Their efforts are badly needed, because even after two “streamlinings” of the process Governor Terry Branstad established on his first day back in office, an embarrassingly small number of Iowans have regained the right to vote.

Continue Reading...

About 1 in 5 Iowa votes already banked

Approximately 20 percent of the Iowans who will participate in this year’s general election had already cast ballots two weeks before election day.

Iowa’s 99 county auditors had received 311,007 absentee ballots as of October 25.

In the last presidential election, 1,589,899 Iowans voted–a record number in absolute terms. Two weeks before the 2012 general election, Iowa county auditors had received 376,065 ballots, which turned out to be about 23.6 percent of total votes cast. I expect this year’s turnout to be a bit lower than the 2012 level, because this year’s major-party presidential nominees are unusually unpopular.

As of yesterday, 487,370 Iowans had requested absentee ballots. At the same point in the 2012 campaign, 542,096 Iowans (more than a third of the number who eventually participated) had done so.

Follow me after the jump for more on how this year’s early vote numbers compare to the last presidential election.

Continue Reading...

"Maybe the legislature and the president are not as stupid as you think. They assuredly picked those people because of who they are and when they get to the court they remain who they were." -- Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia on whether the Supreme Court is too political

As the results of the upcoming Presidential election are impending, much ink – digital and print – and more breath have been spent discussing “The Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court’s fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, famously wrote, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), that the United States Supreme Court “emphatically” has “the province and duty . . . to say what the law is.”

When John Marshall wrote that, the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court was set by the Judiciary Act of 1789 at six by the Congress (the Federal legislature) of the United States – the Chief Justice and five associate justices. That is because there is no set number of justices articulated in the United States Constitution. Article III of the United States Constitution governs the powers of the Federal judiciary. Article I of the United States Constitution governs the responsibilities of the Federal legislature, which is the bi-cameral body (the Senate and the House of Representatives) collectively known as the Congress of the United States.

Pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44 (1869)), an act passed by Congress, and currently found at 28 U.S.C. § 1, the number of United States Supreme Court justices is now set at nine.

Prior to 1869, the number had been as high as 10.

Currently, there are eight United States Supreme Court justices due to a vacancy created by the death of Associate Justice, Antonin Gregory Scalia, which occurred nine months ago on February 13, 2016.

The office of the Presidency of the United States is created by the United States Constitution under Article II, regarding the “Executive” branch of government. See U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 1. Among the constitutional powers of the President is the power – and the duty – to appoint Federal judges. That authority is found at U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 2 (“He [yes, he – not he or she] shall have Power . . . and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme court and other Officers of the United States. . . .”).

During this presidential election cycle, the question has come up, again and again, whether the Senate has a co-existing duty to provide “Advice and Consent.” Particularly this year, and particularly in Iowa, this question has been a topic of discussion because Iowa’s own senior Senator, Charles Ernest Grassley, a Republican, is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (the committee that, among other things, presides over hearings on Federal judicial nominees), in a Senate whose majority is currently Republican, and who is running for re-election. Senator Grassley has stated publicly that Merrick Brian Garland – the judge outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama has nominated to fill the vacancy created by Associate Justice Scalia’s death – will not be considered by the Judiciary Committee because President Obama nominated him during an election year.

The truth is, the Senate probably does have a Constitutional duty to consider the Article III judicial nominations made by the President. But, it’s not clear. The Constitution itself, in Article I (the article laying out the make-up and responsibilities of the Senate and the House of Representatives), is silent on the matter. But, under Article II, the article laying out the powers and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the United States generally, and of the President of the United States particularly, the Constitution gives a duty to the president to nominate and, upon the Senate’s approval, appoint, Federal Judges (defined generally, by Article III, but particularly United States Supreme Court justices).

The Constitution, by virtue of creating the duty in the President, makes some assumption that the Senate, upon being created by Article II, will follow through with acting on the nomination. But again, Article I, which creates the Senate, doesn’t specify how the Senate should handle presidential nominations of judges or anybody else.

To the extent there is some dormant obligation on the part of the Senate to be read in the Constitution, the Senate has ignored it for nearly 200 years. A March 16, 2016 “Fact Check” commentary in The Washington Post called, “Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?” cites President John Quincy Adams’ lame duck nomination of a potential justice in December 1828 – two months after he lost his bid for re-election, three months before his successor, Andrew Jackson, would take office. The Senate ignored the nomination. President Jackson, shortly after his inauguration, nominated the successor, who was later approved by the Senate, and appointed. The Post’s commentary, written by Glenn Kessler, concludes that

Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

Then, of course, there is the situation where Congress is not in session. The President has power under the Constitution to appoint Federal judges when that situation arises. It should not go unnoticed that, since this past February, the Senate has jiggered its individual members’ time such that someone is always, at least, present in Washington, so, technically, the Senate is never in recess.

Judges of the United States Supreme Court, being among the “Officers of the United States,” the President has the power to appoint them while the Senate is in recess, pursuant to by U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 3, but upon the Senate’s return, the Senate must confirm that appointment by the end of its term – typically meaning, the end of that calendar year. Indeed, Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Jr. (1956), Associate Justice Potter Stewart (1958) and, perhaps most significantly, Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953), were all recess appointees of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose appointments were subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate.

Justice Brennan’s appointment was not only a recess appointment, but a 1956 appointment. Nineteen fifty six was an election year and moderate conservative President Eisenhower was running for re-election. William J. Brennan was a Roman Catholic Democrat, a moderate liberal, and from the northeast. He was, in other words, a superfecta nominee for a Republican President seeking to please those four constituencies that year. At the time, William Joseph Brennan Jr. was serving his fifth year as an associate justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, following a brief tenure (less than two years) as a New Jersey trial judge.

Associate Justice Potter Stewart was perhaps the first of only two “swing justices” in the United States Supreme Court’s history; the predecessor to Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who is currently an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
Earl Warren, governor of California, had run against General Dwight David Eisenhower for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1952. Prior to Eisenhower’s subsequent nomination, young, California Senator, Richard M. Nixon, had publicly endorsed Governor Warren for the Republican Party’s nomination. Nixon – feral, self-serving and despicable always – turned on fellow Californian Warren like Peter to Jesus before the cock crowed, when then-General Eisenhower offered Nixon the vice presidency if Eisenhower were elected.

Consequently, in 1953, Nixon actually had a legitimate reason to be paranoid about Warren’s political retribution. Likewise, then-President Eisenhower owed Warren, big time. Initially, Eisenhower offered Warren the role of United States Solicitor General (whose office argues all Federal appeals to the United States Supreme Court) and promised to follow that up with a Supreme Court appointment once a vacancy arose. Before he could announce his appointment of Warren as Solicitor General, however, a Supreme Court vacancy arose.

As happened most recently when District of Columbia Circuit Judge John Glover Roberts Jr., who had never served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court before being nominated for a Chief Justice slot (Chief Justice William J. Rehnquist having passed away), Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower, not only as a new Supreme Court justice, but to the position of Chief Justice, replacing Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who died unexpectedly in 1953.

In 1953, Earl Warren was everything that a Republican President in 2016 would want in a Supreme Court Justice. First, he was a Republican up-and-comer with a solid, conservative background. In any election cycle other than 1952, he probably would have been President of the United States. But in 1952, bolstered by his status as a five-star general in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Republican nominee who ultimately won the presidency by huge numbers (442 electoral votes to his opponent, Adlai Stephenson’s 89 electoral votes).

In 1953, Earl Warren was serving his third term as Governor of California. As governor, he had successfully used New Deal financial initiatives to create jobs in California, chiefly through the creation of vast infrastructure initiatives like highways and bridges, and higher education both in terms of advancing scholarship and constructing brick-and-mortar institutions with the expansion of the University of California system with universities, colleges and community colleges.

Prior to becoming California’s longest-serving Republican governor (his tenure in California has only recently been surpassed by current Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, who was previously California governor in the 1970s), Earl Warren had been the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Warren was responsible for implementing a number of programs Americans now view as loathsome and reprehensible. Perhaps his most unfortunate and enduring legacy was the internment of Japanese immigrants – among them many, many American citizens of Japanese descent – during World War II. Likewise, Warren enforced laws that promoted eugenics in the form of sterilization of Mexicans, Asians and Native Americans – primarily women – in order to have their communities die out so that the state could confiscate their land.

Prior to becoming attorney general, Warren had been a “tough on crime,” “law and order” county attorney for Alameda County, targeting bootleggers and corrupt politicians.

Warren went on, then, to become the Chief Justice who, with a compliment of like-minded jurists from 1953 through his retirement in 1969, ushered in perhaps the most liberal Constitutional case law in the history of the Supreme Court. Right out of the shoot, the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1954, and held, unanimously, that separate but equal school systems for Black children and White children were inherently unequal. Brown overturned more than half a century of precedent from its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision to the effect, separate accommodations in every aspect of public life from rail cars to rest rooms, was equal and acceptable.

Likewise, the Warren court, in 1962, decided a case about Congressional redistricting that was so gut wrenching for the justices that one of them, Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker, a conservative justice from Missouri who had only been on the Court for six years, recused himself and quit the Court the next year. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution afforded equal protection under state legislatures’ redistricting laws. Generally, states re-draw their Congressional districts in order to make them relatively equal in population. They do this by using the United States census. The affect to redrawing Congressional districts is, the interests of the populace change based on how you determine the population. And, as a result of that, state legislatures “gerrymander” the districts, such that, to draw them out on a map, they look like a crazy quilt, because they are rigged to retain a certain party’s power, while fulfilling the obligation to keep the districts relatively equal in terms of population.

But that is a story for another time.

In Baker, the plaintiff was a Tennessee mayor living in an urban district seeking re-election in the late 1950s who noticed that the Congressional districts hadn’t changed since 1901, following the 1900 Federal census. In that half century, the population had shifted from primarily rural to urban, but the district map had not been updated; the district had not been reapportioned. The defendant, Joe Carr, was the Tennessee secretary of state, based on the fact he was officially in charge of conducting free and fair elections. The only question for the court at the time was whether the matter was purely legislative, and the responsibility of the state’s elected officials to sort out, or whether it was something courts could decide.

The Warren Court, split 6-2, with Justice Whittaker abstaining, ruled in Baker that reapportionment was “justiciable:” whether, under Article III, the case was either a “case” or “controversy.” Article III § 2 cl. 2 of the United States Constitution lays out the jurisdiction (what it calls the “judicial power of the United States”) of the United States Supreme Court and “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This was a very big deal because, as is just as true today, the dividing line between states’ rights and Federal government intrusion was a major issue. In the ruling, the court went out of its way to list a series of cases that, it said, confirmed that reapportionment was always justiciable. That being said, the question arose, “Why now, then?” The answer, history has shown, is that the Warren court “went there;” all previous courts had begged off.

But that is as far as it went. The Supreme Court’s Baker ruling did not decide whether Tennessee’s Congressional districts were Constitutional; it remanded the case back to the trial court to make that determination.

Until 1964, when the court exercised its newly-proclaimed justiciability over Congressional redistricting, in a case called, Reynolds v. Sims. The question in Reynolds was whether a state’s redistricting of its own legislative districts was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. There, the Alabama Constitution called for one state senator for every county. Voters in Jefferson County, Alabama – home of the state’s capital, Birmingham, objected to the consequential disparity between the power of their senator, representing a densely populated urban region, and that of any senator from some rural and sparsely populated county.

As in Baker, the apportionment of Alabama counties in Reynolds was based on the 1900 census and a 1901 statute setting forth the rules of redistricting. As in Baker with respect to Missouri, much had changed in those 50 + years, population-wise, in Alabama. In Reynolds, the population variations were so lopsided that when comparing urban and rural counties, the Court found that in some cases, a senator would receive 41 votes in one county for 1 vote received by a senator in another county.

The court was careful in Reynolds to point out that “No effective political remedy to obtain relief against the alleged malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature appears to have been available.” The court was obviously still concerned about the impression the Federal judiciary (nine unelected judges) was forcing its preferences onto the people (judicial activism). It observed that, in order to change the redistricting in Alabama, there had to be a constitutional amendment and constitutional amendments in Alabama could only occur through a 3/5 majority of legislators agreeing to one, followed by a simple majority vote of the people or, by means of a constitutional convention called after a simple majority of the popular vote, and approved by a majority of senators and house legislators. The senators and house members, having obtained their seats through the lopsided system created in 1901, were not likely to change anything.

Ultimately, the court found that the system was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and that the constitution required a system to permit a proportional, one person-one vote, plan. The court wrote, as follows:
History indicates, however, that many States have deviated, to a greater or lesser degree, from the equal-population principle in the apportionment of seats in at least one house of their legislatures, So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature. But neither history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes. Considerations of area alone provide an insufficient justification for deviations from the equal-population principle. Again, people, not land or trees or pastures, vote. Modern developments and improvements in transportation and communications make rather hollow, in the mid-1960’s, most claims that deviations from population-based representation can validly be based solely on geographical considerations. Arguments for allowing such deviations in order to insure effective representation for sparsely settled areas and to prevent legislative districts from becoming so large that the availability of access of citizens to their representatives is impaired are today, for the most part, unconvincing.

Voting rights was a major civil rights issue in 1964, as they continue to be today, 52 years later. But it took the Warren court to break through a century of states running amok with voting schemes that disenfranchised voters. One of the important issues Hillary Clinton raised during the second Presidential debate was voter disenfranchisement.

Aside from voting rights, the Warren court declared in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution afforded indigent Federal prisoners the right to defense counsel paid for by the Federal government. And, in 1968, the Warren court ruled, in Miranda v. Arizona, that a criminal suspect must have his rights explained to him before being interrogated by law enforcement officials – especially the right to remain silent, because anything said can, and will, be used against that suspect.

This level of Constitutional analysis resulting in such a sweeping installment of rights to so many people in such a brief, 16 year period, is viewed by many as unprecedented since Chief Justice Marshall articulated the power of the Federal courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court.

As will be discussed in subsequent installments, there are several questions about the outcome of the 2016 Presidential campaign as it relates to the Supreme Court as a body, and as it relates to the individual justices as legal scholars. As I have just demonstrated, Chief Justice Earl Warren turned out to be the polar opposite of what President Eisenhower would have wanted, much less expected, from the hard-as-nails/law and order California governor and attorney general that Warren had been before presiding over the United States Supreme Court.

Just as clearly, and as demonstrated prior to the recent appointments of Associate Justices Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, a block of justices appointed by Presidents of a certain political ideology can affect the types of cases, and the outcomes of cases, coming before the Supreme Court.

Over the next four, and potentially eight, years, the next president is likely to replace up to four justices on the United States Supreme Court – two of them (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Gerald Breyer), appointees of Democratic, politically moderate, President William Jefferson Clinton and two of them (Associate Justices Antonin Gregory Scalia and Anthony McLeod Kennedy), appointees of Republican, politically conservative, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Sometimes, as in the case of the period Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the Court, that can mean a great deal. Other times, like the past 37 years since Chief Justice Warren retired, and that sesquicentennial period between Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion and the commencement of Chief Justice Warren’s term on the Supreme Court began in 1953, it hasn’t seemed to matter much at all.

Continue Reading...

Kim Reynolds dismisses Trump concerns as "clutter," "distractions"

Poll after poll shows Donald Trump losing badly among women voters, even among white college-educated women, often a Republican-leaning group. But the most powerful women in Iowa Republican politics remain united behind the GOP presidential nominee.

Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds said yesterday that Iowans should “focus on what’s important” rather than on concerns about Trump she characterized as “clutter” and “distractions.” The likely future candidate for governor should never be allowed to forget that she dismissed flaws many prominent Republicans outside Iowa have acknowledged are disqualifying.

Continue Reading...

Rest in peace, Larry Hoch

One of the plaintiffs in Iowa’s historic Varnum v Brien case passed away late last week. As Tom Witosky and Marc Hansen described in their book Equal Before the Law: How Iowa Led Americans to Marriage Equality, Larry Hoch was a middle-school teacher in his late 50s when he met David Twombley online in 2000. A few years later, he moved from New York to Des Moines to be with Twombley.

The couple had already entered into a civil union in Vermont, but our state didn’t recognize the legal status of their relationship. So when Camilla Taylor, an attorney for the LGBT advocacy group Lambda Legal, reached out in the summer of 2005, looking for plaintiffs in a case that would challenge Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act, Hoch agreed immediately without consulting Twombley. The two men jokingly called themselves the “Old Fart Couple,” since they were much older than the five other couples who joined the lawsuit.

Hoch and Twombly unsuccessfully applied for a Polk County marriage license in November 2005. The lawsuit was filed the following month. Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson heard oral arguments in May 2007 and found Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in August of that year. His ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, where seven justices unanimously affirmed the decision in April 2009, allowing the Varnum plaintiffs and others to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register’s Molly Longman, One Iowa executive director Donna Red Wing described Hoch as an “incredible, sweet man” and said he was a regular at LGBT events in central Iowa: “I think for the community to see this older couple — they weren’t exactly spring chickens — engage so passionately in the fight for equality was so important.” Twombley told Longman, “We were both very proud to have been a part of history. We’ve had numerous gay couples that have married that know us or know of us, and they’ve gone out of their way to thank us for what we did for them.”

Although my life was not directly affected by the Varnum case, all Iowans should be grateful for what Hoch and the other plaintiffs did to promote fairness and equality in our state. Without their lawsuit, thousands of LGBT couples in Iowa would have had to wait six more years (until the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell) to obtain the legal and psychological benefits of being married. Witosky and Hansen wrote that Hoch and Twombley “weren’t the first couple the [Lambda Legal] organization had contacted. […] Several Des Moines area couples had been approached but declined for a variety of reasons, mostly because of the attention the case would attract.” After living in the closet for most of his adult life, Hoch risked becoming a target for haters in order to take a stand. May his memory be a blessing.

P.S.- Chief Justice Mark Cady, the author of the Varnum decision, and Supreme Court Justices Brent Appel and Daryl Hecht are up for retention this year statewide. Polk County voters will also see Judge Hanson’s name on the ballot. Please remember to mark yes for them all when you vote.

Branstad committed to "statewide minimum wage"--not minimum wage hike

Governor Terry Branstad has done it again. The master of promising to raise family incomes while opposing specific policies to achieve that goal caused a stir this morning by hinting he might be open to raising Iowa’s minimum wage, last increased in January 2007.

Don’t be fooled. Branstad is not committed to a higher minimum wage. He’s angling to shut down local efforts to establish a livable wage.

Continue Reading...

ISU slipped previously undisclosed airplane spending onto "FAQ" page

Pro tip: Promising to “be as open and transparent as possible” works better when you don’t keep concealing relevant facts from the public.

Iowa State University linked incomplete and redacted files on its page for “Frequently Asked Questions” about President Steven Leath’s use of university-owned airplanes. Staff employed several methods to prevent outsiders from obtaining information about the flights. In an October 22 editorial, the Des Moines Register described the “clumsy response” by ISU and Leath as “every bit as damaging to the university’s reputation as the original offense.”

I would add a few other points to the Register’s list. For instance, ISU quadrupled down on a cover story that makes no sense in order to explain questionable stops on one of Leath’s trips.

In addition, university officials quietly admitted in recent days that ISU’s Foundation spent much more than previously disclosed on one of the airplanes purchased in 2014.

Continue Reading...

The Medical Cannabis Debate in Dallas County, Iowa

Erin Miller shares her family’s experience with a rare medical condition at the Abram Mayhem blog. You can find her past contributions to Bleeding Heartland here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

This blog is specifically regarding medical cannabis and what happened during the recent debate in Iowa House district 19 between State Representative Ralph Watts and his opponent, Bryce Smith. Please watch the enclosed video first, then read the following story.

Continue Reading...

Weekend open thread: Making history

I’m a third-generation Tigers fan–my mother saw Hank Greenberg play at the old Tiger Stadium in Detroit–but most of Iowa is Cubs country. Congratulations to everyone who “Flew the W” Saturday night, watching the Chicago Cubs win the National League pennant for the first time in seven decades. Seeing any long-suffering sports team win a championship makes me happy, so I am glad the next World Series champions will be either the Cubs or the Cleveland Indians. Any thoughts on the potential impact of a Cubs or Indians victory on the election results in Iowa or Ohio?

I shouldn’t tempt fate with November 8 two and a half weeks away, but FiveThirtyEight.com now gives Hillary Clinton an 86 percent chance of winning the presidency. The latest simulation by Reuters/Ipsos sees her winning in 95 percent of scenarios. Recent polls of Iowa voters show no clear favorite in the presidential race. I expect a close result here; the latest absentee ballot numbers give both Democrats and Republicans reason to be optimistic. No matter who wins Iowa’s six electoral votes, Clinton appears very likely to be the next president.

Until a few years ago, I didn’t think a woman would be elected president in my lifetime. Despite all the misogyny and Hillary hate this campaign has brought to the surface, my children’s generation will grow up without the baggage of thinking this country would never elect a woman, just like they would never think an African-American can’t become president. That’s inspiring and empowering.

Any thoughts on which Iowans might get high-profile jobs in a Clinton administration? What place will she find for Tom Vilsack? Politico came up with a short list of five possible candidates to replace Vilsack as secretary of agriculture. (None are from Iowa.)

I’ve reached out to many Iowa Republicans who have kept their distance from Donald Trump or are rumored not to be voting for him. Most have not responded to my queries. I get that it’s a tough political calculation to oppose your party’s nominee, especially when the whole Iowa GOP establishment enthusiastically supports him. But I am convinced many of these closeted #NeverTrumpers will regret lacking the courage to take a stand before November 8. Trump is not some less-than-ideal candidate. He is playing to the ugliest strains in American politics. His demagoguery and blood libel encouraged white nationalists to come out from under their rocks, some explicitly playing the race card for votes while others relentlessly harass Trump’s critics.

Five former heads of the Republican National Committee, dozens of current and former GOP members of Congress, and four former GOP presidential nominees have said they will not vote for Trump. Fifty former senior national security officials in Republican administrations and a former nuclear missile launch officer have said it would be dangerous to give him the nuclear codes. His narcissism is comical, until you remember this man with no impulse control could become president. Meanwhile, Senator Joni Ernst told the whole country Trump would keep us safer. Ernst pretends to care about sexual assault but will vote for a man who threatened to sue all the women who have accused him of assaulting them. This Iraq War veteran hosted Trump at her biggest fundraiser of the year soon after he insulted a Gold Star family.

In contrast to Ernst, Governor Terry Branstad, or state party chair Jeff Kaufmann, some Iowa Republicans have avoided Trump’s rallies or events where they might be seen with the nominee. To them I say: speak up now, or expect your complicity to be a permanent stain on your political career. These people better not claim after Trump’s landslide loss that they secretly didn’t like him and didn’t vote for him.

Hardin County Auditor Jessica Lara told the Wall Street Journal’s Reid Epstein this week that she’s voting for Hillary Clinton. To my knowledge, she is the only current elected Republican official in Iowa to come out publicly for Clinton. Bleeding Heartland was first to report in May that Lara was #NeverTrump.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. History buffs may appreciate Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s phenomenal interactive site showing pictures of street scenes in Budapest during the 1956 Hungarian uprising and in the present day.

Continue Reading...

State auditor and Board of Regents looking more deeply into ISU airplane use

Iowa State University President Steven Leath continues to insist his use of university aircraft violated no policies or laws.

We’ll learn more in the coming months, because the State Auditor’s Office is looking into the matter, and yesterday the Iowa Board of Regents approved a plan to audit every ISU Flight Service flight since Leath was hired in 2012.

Continue Reading...

Iowa second-worst state for racial disparity in drug possession arrests

The massive racial disparities in Iowa’s criminal justice system have long been recognized as among the worst in the country, spurring calls to action not only by advocacy groups but also by Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady and even Governor Terry Branstad.

Yet a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch shows that African-American adults in Iowa are seven times more likely than whites to be arrested for drug possession–an imbalance second only to Montana.

Continue Reading...

Throwback Thursday: Five Russian jokes about rigged elections

Last night’s debate stirred up memories from my “past life.” In two of the most spirited exchanges, Hillary Clinton depicted Donald Trump as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s potential “puppet,” and Trump suggested the “corrupt media” and millions of people who don’t belong on the voter rolls could steal the election.

Large scale voter fraud has been more than a losing candidate’s fantasy in Russia. Observers have documented stuffed ballot boxes and other methods of undermining opposition candidates.

Dark political humor shone a light on some of those flaws in Russia’s early post-Soviet elections.

Continue Reading...

Trump found yet another way to take American politics to a dark place

Donald Trump proved in his final debate against Hillary Clinton that he hasn’t run out of ways to demonstrate he is unfit to serve as president.

About an hour in, Chris Wallace asked the Republican nominee a simple question: will he accept the result of this election? Trump said, “I will look at it at the time,” then rattled off a bunch of bogus talking points. To his credit, Wallace pressed Trump on whether he would honor the tradition of a “peaceful transition of power,” with the loser conceding to the winner. “Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?”

Trump responded, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”

Normal candidates may make gaffes. Unorthodox candidates may say things that are shunned in polite company. But before Trump, even the most offensive candidate didn’t refuse to accept the will of the voters. Associated Press reporters Julie Pace and Lisa Lerer conveyed the enormity of Trump’s break with tradition in the lede to their debate wrap-up: “Threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy […].”

Every GOP candidate and office-holder must repudiate Trump and affirm that they will respect the outcome on November 8. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate spoke out on Monday, describing Trump’s warnings about “large scale voter fraud” as “not helpful” and “misinformation.” Governor Terry Branstad tried to have it both ways, expressing “confidence” in the election system but claiming Trump has been a victim of media bias, and that Iowa county auditors won’t be able to prevent all attempts at voter fraud.

That’s not good enough. By suggesting the result might be illegitimate, Trump could provoke political violence that is unprecedented following a U.S. election in our lifetimes.

Any comments about the third debate are welcome in this thread. For those who missed it, the full video is here, a full transcript is here, and the Los Angeles Times published transcripts of some noteworthy exchanges. Links to a few good fact checks: NPR, New York Times, ABC, Factcheck.org, and Politifact. I enclose below the clip with Trump’s rigged election claims and Clinton’s response to his “horrifying” remarks.

A few other moments stuck out in my mind:

• Clinton’s strong defense of a reproductive rights: “I will defend Roe v. Wade and I will defend women’s rights to make their own healthcare decisions.” Members of CNN’s focus group liked Clinton’s answer to that question better than any other from the Democrat.

• The exchange over immigration policy, in which Trump referred to some “bad hombres” while Clinton pointed out, “We have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire.”

• Clinton saying Russian President Vladimir Putin would “rather have a puppet as the president of the United States” and telling Trump, “You are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do.”

• Trump interrupting with “Such a nasty woman” while Clinton answered a question about Social Security and Medicare. Mental health experts say narcissists “project onto others qualities, traits, and behaviors they can’t—or won’t—accept in themselves.”

Wallace was a much better moderator than I anticipated from a Fox News personality, despite a few missteps.

Continue Reading...

Iowa wildflower Wednesday: Purple giant hyssop

This year’s unseasonably warm autumn weather inspired me to feature a plant today that typically blooms in the summer. Several colonies of Purple giant hyssop (Agastache scrophulariifolia) were in peak flower six to eight weeks ago along the Meredith bike trail between Gray’s Lake and downtown Des Moines.

This member of the mint family is native to much of North America east of the Rocky Mountains. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes it as a plant of “special value to native bees, honey bees and bumble bees.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service guide for this species notes that goldfinches and hummingbirds are also attracted to the flowers, and the plant is a “popular ornamental,” since its height (up to five or six feet) “makes it a good choice as a background against fencing.” It thrives in moist soil and can handle full sun or partial shade.

Purple giant hyssop is a close relative of blue giant hyssop, also known as anise hyssop, which Bleeding Heartland featured last year. According to the Minnesota Wildflowers website, purple giant hyssop has a green calyx (the “cup-like whorl of sepals” that holds the flower) and green on the underside of leaves, while blue giant hyssop has a blue-violet calyx and a “whitish” color on the underside of its leaves. Iowa naturalist and photographer Leland Searles gave me an easier tip: crush a leaf. If it smells like licorice, you’ve found anise hyssop.

Continue Reading...

Latest Iowa polls and election forecasts ahead of the third debate

For reasons I cannot comprehend, few pollsters have surveyed Iowa voters since the first presidential debate. Even fewer Iowa polls have come out since the release of a 2005 videotape sparked the latest Donald Trump meltdown.

Forty years of data indicate that third presidential debates “have had less of an impact on the polls” than earlier debates. (Dan Guild reviewed here how first debates have affected previous presidential races.)

In lieu of a time-wasting “curtain-raiser” about things to watch for at tonight’s big showdown in Las Vegas, let’s look at what the latest opinion polls and election forecasts say about chances for Trump or Hillary Clinton to win Iowa’s six electoral votes. Last time Bleeding Heartland covered this territory, several analysts had shifted Iowa from “lean Democrat” to “toss-up” or from “toss-up” to “lean Republican.”

Continue Reading...
Page 1 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 1,264