Former Iowa legislator Gene Maddox passed away on June 2 at the age of 76. He left a lasting mark on the city of Clive, where he served as mayor from 1977 to 1992. At the beginning of that period, Clive felt like more of a small town, complete with some gravel roads, than a thriving suburb of Des Moines. Now Clive has the third-highest per capita income among Iowa municipalities. The part of the city west of I-35, which was annexed during Maddox’s tenure, is the wealthiest precinct in Iowa.

Maddox was first elected in 1996 and re-elected in 2000 in an Iowa Senate district covering some suburban and rural areas west of Des Moines. Redistricting prompted him to run for an Iowa House seat in 2002. He represented Clive, Windsor Heights, and parts in West Des Moines in the lower chamber for two terms before retiring in 2006. Maddox was one of the last pro-choice Republicans to serve in the Iowa legislature. Not coincidentally, he was also one of the few Republicans for whom I have voted. Whenever I contacted him about an issue (as a constituent only–his legislative career predated my blogging), he was responsive and respectful, even when explaining why he had voted differently from how I would have hoped.  

I didn’t know Maddox well, but everyone I know who did has spoken highly of his character. He was a Republican but not a highly partisan one; he could work with Democratic colleagues. A friend who attended the memorial service yesterday said Maddox’s former legislative clerk told wonderful stories about her old boss. Apparently he interviewed her twice at length before finally asking her over the phone whether she was a Republican.  

Excerpts from Maddox’s obituary are after the jump. If you knew him through his political work or his volunteer service for non-profits including the Polk County March of Dimes, Polk County Cancer Society, and American Diabetes Association, feel free to share any memories or anecdotes in this thread.

Former State Senator Staci Appel told the Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs this morning that she has decided not to run for Congress again in Iowa’s third district. Appel was uncontested for the 2014 nomination in IA-03 and raised quite a bit of money but lost to David Young by a disappointing 10-point margin.

No Democrats have announced plans to challenge Young yet, but former State Senator Matt McCoy is widely considered likely to run–even if he’s not the first choice of Democratic insiders in Washington. Former State Senate candidate Desmund Adams has been talking to Democratic activists around the district for the past several months. Former Governor Chet Culver said earlier this year that he would consider running in IA-03. I haven’t heard much chatter about Culver lately, but Pat Rynard sees him “taking a very serious look” at the race and for various reasons put Culver at the top of his “power rankings” on the IA-03 Democratic primary. I would consider McCoy a slight favorite in a primary battle against Culver and Adams.

EMILY’s List leaders were in Des Moines last week, having put David Young on their list of Republicans who should be “on notice.” That PAC endorses and helps to direct like-minded donors toward pro-choice Democratic women candidates. I’m not aware of any women considering the IA-03 race now that Appel has ruled herself off, so I wonder whether EMILY’s List came to town seeking to recruit someone else. After Representative Tom Latham announced his retirement plans, some local Democrats were hoping State Senator Janet Petersen would run in IA-03, but Petersen hasn’t expressed any interest in serving in Congress. She is much more likely to run for governor in 2018.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Jim Mowrer, who challenged Representative Steve King in IA-04 in 2014, recently moved to Des Moines from Boone. Ha reportedly has not ruled out running against Young.

Governor Terry Branstad does not feel bound by spending compromises Iowa Senate Democrats and House Republicans made to end the 2015 legislative session, he told reporters yesterday. Democrats reluctantly agreed to most of the GOP budget targets in exchange for extra funding for education and other key programs in a $125 million supplemental spending bill. But last year, Branstad vetoed one supplemental spending bill in its entirety and item vetoed from other legislation some hard-fought increases in conservation funding. Similar action in the coming weeks would make an already disappointing session for Democrats even worse.

In more surprising comments yesterday, Branstad indicated that he hasn’t ruled out calling lawmakers back to Des Moines for a special session to set K-12 school funding for the 2016/2017 academic year. Under a 20-year-old state law, the Iowa House and Senate should have acted on that issue months ago, but in recent years House Republicans have refused to follow the timetable for giving school districts a year’s warning on state aid levels. As a result, administrators and school board members were forced to fly blind when adopting budgets for the 2015/2016 academic year. While I’m glad Branstad is back on board with following the law on school funding (he wasn’t always so inclined), I have trouble seeing how a special session could overcome House Republicans’ intransigence.

Follow me after the jump for more details from Branstad’s press conference.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome. After the jump I’ve enclosed highlights from Selzer & Co’s latest Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics. I had planned to focus on that poll last weekend, until I heard the devastating news about Beau Biden.

Speaking of the Selzer poll, I’m waiting for the self-styled “Dr. Politics” (Iowa State University professor Steffen Schmidt) to square his assertion that Iowa Democrats “truly hate [Hillary] Clinton’s ‘listening tour’ campaign” with Selzer’s findings that 86 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers view Clinton favorably, and 57 percent say she is their first choice for president. Yes, Bernie Sanders got great turnout for his Iowa events last weekend. But where is the evidence that Iowans “hate” the Clinton campaign?

The Des Moines Register ran lots of articles featuring poll results this past week. I got a kick out of the “Captain Obvious” headline for this piece: “Moderates, very conservative in GOP not always in sync.” You don’t say. I guess that’s why moderate and very conservative Republicans have gravitated toward different presidential candidates every four years for the last several decades.

The Iowa legislature is wrapping up its work for this year with the usual frenzy of appropriations bills. Months of stalemate over K-12 education funding and social safety net programs ended late last week with a deal that gave Iowa House Republican leaders what they wanted on overall state spending ($7.168 billion) and “allowable growth” for local school district budgets (up by only 1.25 percent). A $125 million supplemental spending bill will allocate one-time money for K-12 schools and some other Democratic priorities.

It will take a while to sort through the wreckage and identify the good, bad, and ugly line items hiding in the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2016. Democrats can only pray that Governor Terry Branstad won’t veto the supplemental spending bill like he did last year.

What’s already clear: Republicans have many more reasons to celebrate. House Speaker Kraig Paulsen was all smiles about the budget deal, while Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal admitted candidly, “I think there’s plenty of disappointment to go around, but we fought long and hard for what we thought was important and I think we, in the end, had some success.” Speaking to reporters earlier this week, Gronstal noted, “If left to our own devices, we would pass a very different budget. But it is our duty to work together to come to common ground between the two sides.”

Why did this “common ground between the two sides” end up so much closer to the Republican negotiating position? Because months ago, Gronstal gave House leaders what they wanted on tax bills, without securing any concessions on spending. Even a brilliant politician can make a mistake.

Iowa Utilities Board Chair Geri Huser “will help decide whether to build a major oil pipeline even though her family law firm has represented a landowner trying to block it,” Ryan Foley reported yesterday for the Associated Press. Shortly after Governor Terry Branstad named Huser to the utilities board in March, Foley reported that Huser’s brother R. Bradley Skinner “has represented farmers who oppose the $3.8 billion [Bakken] pipeline that would transport crude oil from North Dakota across Iowa.” Skinner is no longer the landowners’ legal counsel, and Huser has said she wasn’t aware of her brother’s involvement in the Bakken pipeline dispute.

The latest AP story notes that Huser’s decision not to recuse herself

means all three [Iowa Utilities] board members will vote on whether to approve the $3.8 billion underground pipeline, avoiding a possible deadlock. But legal experts say parties may request Huser’s recusal due to the appearance of bias, and if she declines, the issue could be raised during any appeals of the board’s decision.

I have a bad feeling that any appeals of the board’s decision will come from pipeline opponents rather than from Dakota Access, LLC, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners that wants to build the Bakken pipeline through eighteen counties from northwest to southeast Iowa.  

Nearly four years have passed since Governor Terry Branstad and his senior staffers tried to strong-arm Iowa Workers Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey into resigning years before the end of his fixed term, but the lawsuit Godfrey filed in early 2012 won’t be heard in court anytime soon. Grant Rodgers reported for the Des Moines Register today that before the case goes to trial, the Iowa Supreme Court will rule on whether Godfrey “can invoke the Iowa Constitution to win monetary damages from the state in his lawsuit against Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds and four former state officials.” Excerpts are after the jump, but you should click through to read the whole story. Godfrey’s attorney Roxanne Conlin appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court after Polk County District Court Judge Brad McCall “tossed out Godfrey’s four constitution-based claims in an April order.”

Last summer, a divided Iowa Supreme Court ruled that Godfrey could sue Branstad and five other administration officials individually for defamation, extortion and other claims, in addition to pursuing general claims and tort claims against the state of Iowa.  The governor contends that neither he nor his staffers discriminated against Godfrey, and that he was seeking to appoint a commissioner who would be more sympathetic to business owners. Depositions began in the fall of 2014, and a trial date had been set for November of this year. The Iowa Supreme Court is likely to resolve the new constitutional issue sometime in 2016.

Who says wildflowers are harmless, pretty things? This week’s first featured plant can kill you. The second can give you a horrible blistering rash.

Normally I focus on native plants for my wildflower diaries, but I’m making an exception this week because European invaders poison hemlock (yes, that poison hemlock) and wild parsnip have both become widespread in Iowa. Learning to spot them will help you steer clear. If you have children who like to explore nature, I strongly encourage you to teach them to avoid wild parsnip. A friend’s son ran off the bike path to play and ended up with second-degree burns.

Speaking of wildflowers you should observe from a safe distance, larger poison ivy plants tend to bloom in June. The flowers are not conspicuous, but they are attractive.

Two provisions of the Patriot Act and one other legal provision granting surveillance powers expired on Sunday night, as the U.S. Senate failed to pass either a short-term Patriot Act extension or the House-approved USA Freedom Act, which would revise parts of that law. Jamie Dupree wrote a good overview of the key points of contention, including the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection practices. Julian Hattem previews the next likely steps in the Senate and House (assuming the Senate approves an amended version of the USA Freedom Act this week). Carl Hulse analyzed the “lose-lose-lose result” for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who prefers not to curtail NSA surveillance powers but arguably “overplayed his hand.”

How Congress will resolve this dispute remains unclear, but we have learned one thing from the last ten days: Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst oppose the current bipartisan compromise on how to revise the Patriot Act. For Ernst, the expiring Patriot Act provisions “are critical to the safety and security of our country”–a view similar to Representative Steve King’s reasons for voting against “data disarmament” when the House considered the USA Freedom Act.

In Grassley’s more nuanced view, Congress should enact “meaningful reform by ending the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records under Section 215” of the Patriot Act, while allowing the government to gather such information in a targeted way. Grassley also objects to how the USA Freedom Act would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  

Details on the relevant Senate votes are after the jump, along with statements from Grassley and Ernst. I’ve also noted which Republican senators who are running for president supported either the USA Freedom Act or a short-term Patriot Act extension.

UPDATE: Grassley and Ernst split on June 2 as the Senate passed the USA Freedom Act. Details on their votes are below, along with their explanations. While Iowa’s two Republican senators have voted differently on a handful of amendments or motions related to consideration of other bills, today’s votes represent their first major policy disagreement since Ernst was sworn in.

Scroll to the end of this post for details on how the GOP presidential candidates voted today.

Democracy for America and MoveOn.org announced today that effective June 8, they will suspend the effort to convince Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president. Organizers say the Run Warren Run campaign collected more 365,000 signatures on petitions since December and generated substantial support in other ways, described in detail in the press release enclosed below. From where I’m sitting, there are better ways to spend $1.25 million on progressive advocacy efforts. Warren will receive a copy of the petition, and MoveOn and DFA will presumably retain contact information for everyone who signed.

Today’s announcement says nothing about whether MoveOn.org or Democracy for America will endorse one of the two Democrats running for president as progressive alternatives to Hillary Clinton: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont or former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. The Iowa Democrats I know who were excited about Warren seem to be either supporting Sanders already or leaning in that direction. Run Warren Run ceased to have any real purpose the day Sanders announced his candidacy, but this past month, organizers have continued to ask Iowans to sign petitions, claiming there was a real chance Warren would change her mind.

First-term Representative Rod Blum will be one of the top targets next year for EMILY’s List, the political action committee supporting pro-choice Democratic women announced today.  

By STATE REP. CHUCK ISENHART, Dubuque

For two years, along with other state legislators, I have waved yellow flags about the Pacific and European trade deals being negotiated by the Obama Administration.

As Congress moves to give the president authority to “fast-track” trade treaties with other nations — meaning Congress would give up its ability to change the agreements — those flags are turning red.

Why do state legislators care? Proposed language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement could threaten our ability to enforce state laws. This undermines the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.” Congress may give the President the ability to effectively negotiate this amendment away.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley launched his presidential campaign in Baltimore yesterday before holding events in the Quad Cities and Des Moines later in the day. He was well-received at both venues and in New Hampshire today. I challenge any Democrat to find much to disagree with in O’Malley’s message.

O’Malley’s pitch to Democrats draws several indirect contrasts to front-runner Hillary Clinton, starting with the “new leadership” tag line on his campaign materials. His stump speech includes riffs on declining real wages, trade policy and the banking industry that put him to Clinton’s left. But from what we saw in Iowa this weekend, O’Malley has a lot of work to do to.

O’Malley’s immediate problem isn’t the large lead for Clinton in name recognition and opinion polls. It’s that Senator Bernie Sanders has already claimed the “progressive alternative to Hillary” niche.  

Devastating news: Vice President Joe Biden’s oldest child, Beau Biden, passed away of brain cancer today. He was only 46 years old but already had an accomplished career, including service as Delaware attorney general. He was seen as a likely future governor or senator. He leaves behind a wife and two children.

Beau Biden spent quite a bit of time in Iowa supporting his father’s presidential campaign in 2007. I only met him once, at a house party in West Des Moines, where he came across as down to earth and sincerely interested in talking politics with a bunch of strangers. I heard nothing but good things about Beau from my many friends and acquaintances who encountered him on the campaign trail. Many Iowans have been sharing their memories on social media this evening. I hope some members of the Bleeding Heartland community will tell their own stories in this thread.

After the jump I’ve posted the Biden family’s statement and a video of an incredible speech the vice president delivered in 2012 to an audience of grieving military families. He shared his experiences after the car accident that killed his wife and baby daughter and injured his sons Beau and Hunter, then told the bereaved listeners,

“There will come a day, I promise you, when the thought of your son or daughter or your husband or wife brings a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye. It will happen. It will happen. My prayer for you is that day will come sooner or later. […] I’m telling you it will come.”

It’s heartbreaking for any parent to suffer the loss of a child. I can’t believe Joe Biden has to live through this nightmare a second time. But as Michael Grunwald observed, “When you think of what Joe Biden’s endured and what he’s like, he seems to get something right about life that most of us don’t.”

This post is also an open thread: all topics welcome.

My name is Jane Kersch, a senior at Iowa State University, majoring in political science and environmental sustainability. I come from a middle class background, raised by a single mother who worked two jobs to put my brother and I through private school. I have seen first hand what it has been like for my mother to support her children, struggling to pay for school and healthcare.  

Kids in Iowa have a right to safe, nondiscriminatory school environments where their civil and constitutional rights are protected. Those rights include freedom of expression and due process. Bullying is a serious problem that warrants thoughtful action by schools and policymakers. But attempts to remedy bullying should not trample on the free speech of students.

This morning the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a lawsuit brought by Democratic state lawmakers and a public employee union leader to challenge the closure of the Iowa Juvenile Home without legislative input in the middle of the 2014 fiscal year. The seven justices reversed a Polk County District Court ruling from February 2014, which had ordered the Branstad administration to reopen the home.

The full text of Justice Edward Mansfield’s decision is available here (pdf). Follow me after the jump for key points and excerpts. The central factor in the ruling was the Iowa legislature’s failure to appropriate funds to operate the Iowa Juvenile Home for the 2015 fiscal year.

Today’s news is a classic example of elections having consequences. Had Democrats recaptured the Iowa House majority in 2012, which could easily have happened with better allocation of resources, lawmakers in both chambers would have funded the home for girls during the 2014 legislative session. That in turn would have prompted the Iowa Supreme Court to view the lawsuit over the juvenile home closure differently.

The latest “Civic Skinny” column in the Des Moines-based weekly Cityview explores an angle that hadn’t occurred to me when I read Jason Noble’s excellent recent reports about “ongoing financial struggles” for the Central Iowa Expo facility in Boone.

Noble documented “red flags” surrounding the initial business plan for the facility, which received substantial aid from Boone County and a $5 million federal loan guarantee. U.S. Department of Agriculture officials “felt pressure to approve” the loan guarantee and agreed thanks to “assurances by expo officials of substantial fundraising by two of the most powerful men in Iowa: once and future Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and Republican super-lawyer Doug Gross.”

Civic Skinny took a closer look at Branstad’s fundraising for the Boone venue.  

The August straw poll is traditionally the most-watched “cattle call” before the Iowa Republican caucuses and an important state GOP fundraiser.

Responding to criticism of past straw polls, the Republican Party of Iowa revamped this year’s plans, hoping to encourage broad participation. However, signs point to most of the top-tier presidential candidates opting out.

Pat Rynard broke an interesting story today at Iowa Starting Line: a super-PAC is being created to support Ravi Patel’s campaign in Iowa’s first Congressional district. Patel is one of three declared Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Representative Rod Blum. He has already raised a shocking amount of money for a first-time candidate–more than half a million dollars by the end of March. That haul included funds from some 80 people who maxed out to Patel’s campaign for the general election as well as for the primary. Congressional campaigns can’t spend more than $2,700 from any individual donor before the 2016 primary, but a super-PAC could collect and spend as much as anyone wants to donate, anytime.

Rynard quotes Patel adviser Norm Sterzenbach (a former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party) as saying, “There is already one Super PAC operating in this race. EMILY’s List came out early with their support of Monica Vernon and we fully expect them to run a considerable independent campaign on her behalf.” Yes and no.

EMILY’s List did endorse Vernon early. Technically, that group is a regular political action committee, not a super-PAC. The Women Vote! super-PAC is associated with EMILY’s List, and it spent quite a bit of money during the last election cycle, but mostly not on expenditures for women in competitive Democratic primaries for U.S. House seats. It remains to be seen how much money EMILY’s List will put behind Vernon; I would guess not nearly as much as a super-PAC would spend for Patel or against his rivals. EMILY’s List gave $10,000 directly to Staci Appel’s 2014 campaign in IA-03 and bundled another $233,283 in contributions to Appel, who had no competition in her primary.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. P.S.- If Rynard’s sources are correct, Jeff Link will lead the super-PAC for Patel.