Governor Terry Branstad’s approval rating is far higher than the percentage of Iowans who would definitely vote for his re-election, according to the latest Iowa poll conducted by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register. Selzer & Co surveyed 703 Iowa adults between February 23 and 26, producing a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent–though it’s worth noting that a random sample of Iowa adults does not necessarily reflect the 2014 midterm electorate.

In the Register’s new poll, 63 percent of respondents said they approved of Branstad’s job performance, up from 58 percent in December. Just 30 percent disapproved of Branstad’s work, and 7 percent were not sure. In a head to head matchup against Democratic State Senator Jack Hatch, Branstad leads by 44 percent to 29 percent. Jason Noble commented, “The 44 percent of respondents who say they’d vote for Branstad is down from 52 percent in December [2013] and 55 percent in June.” Sounds like a lot of people like the governor but sense that he’s had enough time in the job.

Other Iowa polls conducted during the past year or two have similarly suggested that Branstad enjoys high approval ratings, with somewhat lower numbers of voters ready to re-elect him to a sixth term. Hatch has outlined a strong set of policies for Iowa but clearly needs to raise his name recognition. Making a case against the incumbent may be challenging; if the Register’s poll is accurate, 52 percent of Iowans see the state heading “in the right direction,” with only 37 percent saying it’s “on the wrong track.” Most sitting governors would be happy to take those numbers into a re-election campaign.

Yet another good idea has fallen victim to the U.S. Senate’s rules requiring a super-majority to advance legislation. Although 44 Democratic senators and eleven Republicans supported a bill that would have taken sexual assault cases outside the military chain of command, backers fell five votes short of the 60 needed to pass a cloture motion yesterday. Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley both voted for cloture (roll call) on the bill sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pentagon leaders and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Claire McCaskill lobbied against the measure. A weaker sexual assault prevention bill proposed by McCaskill advanced after senators rejected cloture on Gillibrand’s bill.

After the jump I’ve posted the key arguments for both sides in the debate, as well as comments from Grassley and Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01). In the floor statement I’ve enclosed below, Grassley urged colleagues, “We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn’t reported because of a perception that justice won’t be done.” Braley has long supported reforms along the lines of Gillibrand’s bill, and yesterday he promised to keep pushing on the issue, saying opponents are “on the wrong side of history.” Braley is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Harkin will vacate at the end of this year.

P.S. – Of the Republican senators considered most likely to run for president in 2016, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for cloture on Gillibrand’s bill. Marco Rubio voted against it.  

I’m always fascinated when conservatives who claim to support “states’ rights” cry foul when another state enacts a law they dislike. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, a law designed “to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals,” including new rules on conditions for egg-laying hens. State lawmakers later passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law extending those rules to producers of any eggs sold in California. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) tried but ultimately failed to insert language in the federal Farm Bill overturning California’s law, which will affect Iowa egg producers when it becomes effective on January 1, 2015. King argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, creating an illegal trade barrier between states.

Since President Barack Obama signed into law a five-year Farm Bill that does not include King’s amendment, attorneys general in Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the California law. Governor Terry Branstad announced yesterday that he has joined that lawsuit on Iowa’s behalf. Details are after the jump, including excerpts from the court filing and statements released by Branstad and King.

I am not an attorney, much less a specialist on the Commerce Clause, but I doubt the plaintiffs will succeed in overturning the California law, for three reasons: 1) the law does not “discriminate”; 2) the law does not force any conduct on egg producers outside the state of California; and 3) overturning this law would prompt a wave of lawsuits seeking to invalidate any state regulation designed to set higher standards for safety, public health, or consumer protection.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled yesterday that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated a rule designed to identify and remove suspected non-citizens from Iowa voter rolls. Schultz first tried to enact a similar rule using “emergency” procedures during the summer of 2012, but a different Polk County judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect before the 2012 general election.

Schultz then proposed a different version of the rule (full text here) and enacted it using the normal rulemaking process. Several advocacy groups claimed the rules could intimidate and/or disenfranchise legitimate Iowa voters. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens restarted their voter suppression lawsuit last March. In September, District Court Judge Rosenberg rejected Schultz’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in November, Rosenberg issued a temporary injunction preventing Schultz from implementing the rule before the court considered the merits of the case.

Yesterday Rosenberg found in favor of the plaintiffs, saying Schultz “lacked the statutory authority” to promulgate a rule allowing his office to use a federal database to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status. He further found that there was no rational basis for concluding that the rule was within the delegated authority of the Iowa Secretary of State’s office and ordered the respondent to pay legal costs. Schultz plans to appeal the ruling, which you can read in full at the Des Moines Register’s website. I doubt the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, because the excerpts I’ve posted below are convincing.

Side note: I suspect that Schultz expected this verdict, and the likely failure of this crusade was one among several factors that prompted him to bail out of his current position in order to run for Congress in the open third district.

UPDATE: Added some comments from the ACLU of Iowa below. It’s worth noting that this ruling focused on the matter of Schultz’s authority and did not settle the question of whether his procedure would have wrongfully intimidated eligible voters or deprived them of their voting rights.

Since Democrats changed U.S. Senate rules in November to remove the 60-vote threshold for cloture motions on most presidential nominees, senators have confirmed dozens of President Barack Obama’s appointees as federal judges, ambassadors, and to various executive branch positions. In fact, fifteen presidential nominees sailed through the process during the past month alone.

Yesterday, for the first time under new Senate rules, Democrats could not muster even a simple majority of votes in favor of cloture on a presidential nominee. Alexander Bolton and Ramsey Cox reported on the controversy that torpedoed Debo Adegbile’s nomintaion to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Critics said Adegbile was unfit for the job because as director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he had supported efforts commute the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, “who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.”

Seven Democrats joined all the Republicans present to defeat the cloture motion on Adegbile’s nomination by 52 votes to 47 (roll call). The Iowans split along party lines, with Senator Tom Harkin supporting cloture on Adegbile’s nomination and Senator Chuck Grassley voting against the motion. Harkin sharply criticized his colleagues, saying Adegbile would have been confirmed if he were white.

Bolton and Cox saw yesterday’s vote as “a stinging defeat for Obama.” I see it as a more stinging defeat to basic concepts underlying the American justice system: everyone has a right to a defense, and defense attorneys should not be held accountable for their clients’ conduct. Going back to the colonial period, this country has a tradition of attorneys providing a vigorous defense at trial to even odious criminals. President John Adams remained proud of his work defending the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre of 1770 and opposing the death penalty for them, even though they had shot and killed patriots.

UPDATE: Added comments from Harkin after the jump.

Since last summer, many Iowa politics watchers have had Republican State Representative Josh Byrnes on retirement watch. However, he announced this week that he will seek a third term in Iowa House district 51. After the jump I’ve posted a district map and Byrnes’ re-election statement.

Democratic candidate Laura Hubka has been actively campaigning for months. She’s facing a relatively strong incumbent in this district, which covers Howard, Mitchell, Worth, and part of Winneshiek Counties along Iowa’s northern border. Byrnes was comfortably re-elected in 2012 even as President Barack Obama won more than 55 percent of the vote in House district 51. The latest totals from the Secretary of State’s office indicate that the district contains 5,765 registered Democrats, 6,470 Republicans, and 8,643 no-party voters.

Although I have not heard of any Republican planning to challenge Byrnes, three factors make me suspect he will not get a free pass in the GOP primary.

1. Byrnes is the leading Iowa House proponent of raising the gasoline tax, a popular view among some rural constituencies but not in the Republican base. He even taunted the advocacy group Iowans for Tax Relief after this year’s subcommittee hearing, where the gas tax bill advanced.

2. While many Iowa House Republicans are quietly satisfied to see a constitutional amendment on marriage die in the funnel for two years running, to my knowledge Byrnes is still the only person in his caucus who openly supports same-sex marriage rights.

3. Last year Byrnes was one of just two GOP legislators to support the Democratic position on expanding Medicaid in Iowa. (The other one, Brian Moore, represents the most Democratic-leaning Iowa House district Republicans now control.)

It will be a St. Patrick’s Day miracle if no anti-tax zealot, social conservative, or “Liberty” activist steps up to challenge Byrnes by the March 14 filing deadline.  

UPDATE: Amazingly, no other Republican filed papers to seek the GOP nomination in House district 51.

Business owner Joe Gatto defeated real estate agent and longtime community activist Joe Henry in yesterday’s special election to represent Ward 4 on the Des Moines City Council. Unofficial results from the Polk County Auditor show that Gatto won by 1,687 votes to 1,283 (57 percent to 42 percent). Ward 4 covers most of the southeast side of Des Moines. The City Council seat became open when Brian Meyer won a special election for an Iowa House seat last October. Henry had begun campaigning for that Iowa House race but stepped aside once Meyer made his intentions known last August.

The Ward 4 special election campaign was not quite as bitterly contested as last year’s at-large race between Skip Moore and Chris Diebel, but it was a close call. Gatto has long lived in Ward 3 while owning a business (Baratta’s restaurant) in Ward 4. In September, after it became clear that Meyer would leave the City Council, Gatto took possession of his mother’s home in Ward 4. A Des Moines resident who works with Henry’s wife challenged Gatto’s eligibility for the race, since he claimed residence at his mother’s home rather than where his wife and children still reside in Ward 3. Gatto said his elderly mother needs help because of health problems. A three-person panel including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie ruled Gatto eligible for the ballot. He appears to have won on a strong early voter drive; Henry’s campaign claimed to have won more votes cast yesterday. After the results were in, Gatto pledged “to focus on the real issues of Ward 4 and get to work for the people of the Ward.”

Governor Terry Branstad’s office released a long list of nominees to state boards and commissions yesterday. I’ve posted the full list after the jump. As he’s done during the past three years, the governor tapped several former state legislators or onetime Republican candidates for the Iowa House or Senate. The latest batch of appointees includes former GOP State Representative Lance Horbach for the State Judicial Nominating Commission, former GOP State Representative Jamie Van Fossen for the Public Employment Relations Board, and former GOP State Senator John Putney for the State Transportation Commission.

Branstad also re-appointed former GOP State Senator Jeff Lamberti to the Racing and Gaming Commission. I’m not surprised; the governor has expressed his confidence in him many times, even immediately after Lamberti’s drunk driving arrest in May 2012. A few weeks later, Lamberti pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, after which his colleagues elected him chairman of the Racing and Gaming Commission.

Several Iowa lawmakers in both parties have been caught driving after drinking too much alcohol. Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds was arrested for drunk driving twice while serving as a county treasurer. Arguably, Lamberti’s lapse in judgment is no impediment to leading one of the most powerful state commissions, which will soon make a high-profile decision on granting licenses to two new casino projects.

At the same time, it’s striking that Branstad, so committed to a continuing role in public life for Lamberti, so committed to seeing Reynolds succeed him as governor, is also determined to prevent tens of thousands of Iowans from ever participating in politics at the most basic level for a U.S. citizen. Since he signed an executive order making Iowa one of the most restrictive states for felon voting, only about 40 people have managed to regain their voting rights out of an estimated “25,000 offenders who finished their sentences for felonies or aggravated misdemeanors” since January 2011. Branstad’s policy affects mostly non-violent criminals. Non-white Iowans are more likely to be permanently disenfranchised, since Iowa is the worst state for racial disparities in marijuana arrests.

Branstad recently defended his policy on these terms: “At least somebody that commits an infamous crime such as a felony ought to pay the court costs and the fine associated with that crime before they expect to get their rights restored.” The governor knows perfectly well that most ex-felons are lucky to find a job that covers essentials like food and housing. Repaying thousands of dollars in court costs is not realistic for most of these people. Moreover, “infamous” crimes can include stealing a vending machine as a teenager. Denying thousands of Iowans a real chance to exercise their right to vote is a scandal, especially for a governor so forgiving of serious mistakes made by certain well-connected Republicans.

Voters in Des Moines will decide today whether to allow the city to collect a “franchise tax” on utility bills. The money would be used to repay tens of millions of dollars collected in “franchise fees” between 2004, when a class-action lawsuit was filed challenging the fee as an illegal tax, and 2009, when the Iowa legislature approved and Governor Chet Culver signed a law allowing cities to charge franchise fees. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in March 2012 that the city would have to refund the franchise fees collected between 2004 and 2009. The Iowa legislature approved language that would have allowed the city of Des Moines to collect a franchise fee for seven years, but Governor Terry Branstad vetoed that line item.  

Des Moines city leaders then considered three options for repaying the estimated $42 million: cutting city staff or services (which already took a hit during the “Great Recession”), raising property taxes, or raising the franchise fee on utility bills. City leaders opted for the franchise tax, but it will only happen if Des Moines voters approve today’s referendum.

Bleeding Heartland user Jon Muller made this case for a yes vote:

There’s an election in Des Moines to approve a Franchise Tax today.  I encourage voters to approve the measure.  It’s a very simple choice for any homeowner.  You can pay a modest tax on your utility bill for 7 years, $2.50 on a $100 monthly bill.  Or, if the measure does not pass, you will pay 41 cents per thousand of taxable valuation for 20 years.  On a $150,000 house, you’re looking at $32 a year for 20 years.

This was the easiest Yes vote I have ever cast.  Not even a line call.  This isn’t about past mistakes, which many of us agree could have avoided this entire situation.  It’s only about how you prefer your taxes be raised, how much they will be raised, and for how long.  More than 40% of the property in Des Moines isn’t even subject to property taxes, but virtually all of the property in Des Moines consumes electricity.  A Yes vote means we spread the burden across more taxpayers, at a lower rate, for less time.

Simple.

An analysis by the city determined that raising property taxes “would cost a typical homeowner about $444 over the next 20 years,” while the proposed franchise fee increase “would cost a electric customer about $273 over the next seven years.”

UPDATE: Unofficial results from the Polk County auditor’s office indicate that “yes” passed easily by 8,095 votes to 1,422 (85 percent to 15 percent).

Iowa elected officials from both parties have embraced policies to support veterans. But last week Republicans in the U.S. Senate used a procedural move to block a bill that would have supported veterans’ access to health care and higher education. Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill,

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) bill, S. 1982, would have expanded veterans’ healthcare programs, given veterans in-state tuition rates at all schools across the country and provided advanced appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It also sought to permanently fix a cut to the growth rate of veterans’ pensions. Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill to avoid a cut in the growth rate for current service members and veterans, but anyone enlisting after 2013 would still see a cut. Sanders’s bill would have eliminated that cut as well.

Cox explains that this bill got caught up in a longstanding dispute over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s efforts to limit floor votes on minority amendments, especially those that are “non-germane” or unrelated to the subject of the bill. Republicans wanted to vote on a substitute amendment that would have included sanctions against Iran. They also didn’t agree with the “pay-for” section of Sanders’ bill, which offset expected costs of about $20 billion “by limiting overseas contingency funds from 2018-2021.”

As a result, after Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to refer the bill back to the Veterans Affairs Committee, Republicans rejected a “motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline” with respect to the bill. Democrats could muster only 56 votes in favor of that motion; under Senate rules at least 60 votes were needed to advance the bill. Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted against the motion, while Senator Tom Harkin voted for it, along with all the Democrats present and two Republicans.

I did not see any statement from Grassley explaining his vote on this bill. He has repeatedly criticized Reid in recent months for not allowing more votes on minority amendments.  

Jim Mowrer, the Democratic challenger to Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, is one of twelve candidates the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee considers to be “emerging races” in 2014. According to the statement from the DCCC, enclosed below, this category “highlights candidates and districts that are making themselves competitive by running smart campaigns which are becoming increasingly competitive.” Mowrer’s campaign out-raised the six-term Republican incumbent in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2013. He is running as a “common-sense” candidate more in touch with the values of Iowans than King, who gets bogged down in “reckless partisan politics.” Mowrer’s official comment on today’s news is after the jump.

Candidates in “emerging races” do not receive as much financial or logistical support from the DCCC as the top-tier “Red to Blue” candidates, but in past years a fair number of these races were bumped up to “Red to Blue” status during the general election period. IA-04 is an uphill climb for any Democrat, with 123,932 registered Democrats, 174,879 Republicans, and 174,235 no-party voters as of March 2014.

Speaking of King, he has long been one of the House Republicans progressives most “love to hate,” and he is commonly quoted in fundraising appeals by a wide range of Democratic Party committees and Democratic-aligned organizations. But he does have limits. I noticed last week that someone came up with an anti-gay bill that was too stupid and bigoted even for King to co-sponsor. Some idiot lobbyist claims five House Republicans and one senator are interested in co-sponsoring a bill to stop gay athletes from playing in the National Football League. King commented,

“I don’t support the idea that we advertise our sexuality, whatever it might be,” said King. “So, therefore I don’t support the idea of legislation addressing anyone’s unidentified, unadvertised sexuality.”

King presumably doesn’t have a problem with heterosexuals “advertising” their sexuality by appearing in public with their spouses.  

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced this morning the first wave of “Red to Blue” candidates running in U.S. House districts. Former State Senator Staci Appel, who is running for Iowa’s open third Congressional district, is one of the sixteen candidates (including ten women) at the highest “Red to Blue” level. After the jump I’ve enclosed a press release from Appel’s campaign.

Even before anyone suspected Representative Tom Latham would retire this year, the DCCC had promised Appel “early financial communications, operational and strategic support.” Her strong fundraising and endorsements from many labor unions and progressive organizations make Appel the heavy favorite in the Democratic primary. Gabriel De La Cerda is the other declared candidate in IA-03.

Appel is likely to face one of the following six declared GOP candidates in IA-03: State Senator Brad Zaun, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, construction company leader Robert Cramer, former U.S. Senate staffer David Young, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw, and Des Moines-based teacher Joe Grandanette.

The latest official numbers from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office indicate that sixteen counties in IA-03 contain 154,061 registered Democrats, 160,782 Republicans, and 157,001 no-party voters.

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

Republicans in Governor Terry Branstad’s orbit tried to rig the game to ensure that the March 8 Polk County GOP Convention ratified a long list of at-large delegates to the third Congressional district and state conventions later this year. Shane Vander Hart provides good background at Caffeinated Thoughts. Activist Kim Schmett, who was the GOP challenger to Representative Leonard Boswell in 2008, complained to the Des Moines Register, “Some unknown person is coming up with an ultimate list. Why have a county convention at all if 40 percent of your delegates are hand-picked ahead of time?”

Sounds like Branstad’s team was not satisfied with results from their efforts to turn loyalists out to the off-year precinct caucuses in January. The governor needs to prevent any serious challenge at the state convention to Kim Reynolds’ nomination for a second term as lieutenant governor. I am convinced that if re-elected, he will step down in the middle of his sixth term to ensure that she becomes governor.

State convention delegates may also end up selecting the GOP nominee for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat, if no one wins at least 35 percent of the vote in the June primary. Similarly, a third Congressional district convention may select the GOP nominee if none of the six declared IA-03 candidates wins at least 35 percent of the primary votes.

The Iowa Republican blogger Craig Robinson worked with Polk County GOP Chair Will Rogers and two Branstad campaign staffers to resolve concerns over delegate selection. As a result, the at-large slate was reduced from 100 to 50 delegates guaranteed to be at the district and state conventions. Vander Hart commented, “While I’m glad they responded to the backlash it should be the Polk County Republican Executive Committee, not the Branstad Campaign, determining this list.” Obviously.

The Polk County GOP addressed the controversy in a Facebook post I’ve excerpted after the jump. UPDATE: Added some comments below from Dave Chung, an Iowa GOP State Central Committee member. SECOND UPDATE: Added excerpts from Craig Robinson’s commentary.

And now for something completely different: music geeks may enjoy Seth Stevenson’s analysis of the strange time signature of the theme from the original Terminator movie, which (amazingly) is 30 years old this year.

It’s been a while since we had a thread about the 2016 presidential campaign on the Republican side. Spin your own scenarios in the comments.

Public Policy Polling’s latest survey of Iowa Republicans shows a jumble, with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee slightly ahead, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas notably trending up and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida trending down, along with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Highlights are after the jump, or click here for full results and cross-tabs. I’m not surprised to see Cruz’s favorability improve, as he wowed Republican crowds during two Iowa visits last year.

PPP’s robocall format only allows a maximum of nine candidates to be listed. I find it strange that the pollster included Huckabee and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, neither of whom seem likely to run for president in 2016. It’s all the more odd since the poll did not give respondents a chance to choose former Senator Rick Santorum, the narrow winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses, as a presidential candidate.

PPP’s poll also did not offer respondents a chance to choose Texas Governor Rick Perry, who came to Iowa this week. He appeared on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program, attended a “business roundtable” in Davenport organized by the Koch Brothers group Americans for Prosperity, and spoke to GOP activists in Polk County at a private fundraiser and a small “rally” at Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign headquarters. I’ve posted excerpts from Perry’s “Iowa Press” comments below. I was particularly interested in his take on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoing a bill that would have allowed private businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. Perry provided a textbook example of how to pivot away from the question you don’t want to answer the question you wanted.

Another ambitious Republican excluded from PPP’s Iowa poll is former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who recently agreed to headline the April 3 GOP dinner in tiny Ringgold County. Brown visited the Iowa State Fair last summer and spoke at a Scott County GOP event in November.  

Most gun-related bills failed to make it through in the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” last week. The list of proposals that are dead for this year included efforts to restrict access to firearms (such as Senate File 2179 to close the gun show loophole) and several bills aimed at making guns more available: House File 384 to authorize possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns; House File 169/Senate File 251 to allow Iowans with permits to carry concealed weapons on school grounds; House File 172 to allow school employees to carry guns in school; and House File 2012 to allow children as young as 12 to possess handguns.

The trouble is, many incumbents don’t want to face the gun lobby’s wrath in an election year. Many lawmakers want to have something to brag about when pro-gun activists compile scorecards and endorsement lists. Such concerns prompted Iowa House and Senate leaders to revive and eventually pass a 2010 bill to make it easier for Iowans to carry concealed weapons.

I believe the same dynamic prompted Iowa House members to vote overwhelmingly yesterday to legalize firearm suppressors, better known as “silencers” popular for many decades among snipers and assassins.

I didn’t see this coming, but perhaps I should have, given his less than stellar fourth quarter fundraising report: State Representative Walt Rogers is ending his Congressional campaign in Iowa’s first district. Instead, he will seek re-election to Iowa House district 60. His official statement is after the jump.

Rogers has long been considered a rising star in the Iowa House Republican caucus. He won re-election in 2012 despite President Barack Obama carrying his district by a narrow margin. He hired campaign staffers while his Congressional bid was still in the exploratory phase and quickly gained support from former presidential candidate Rick Santorum and several state lawmakers. But he faced a tough race against Rod Blum in the GOP primary. In addition to almost winning the Republican nomination in IA-01 in 2012, Blum had support from activists on the party’s “Liberty” wing and a financial advantage over Rogers at the end of 2013.

Even if Rogers won the IA-01 primary, he would face an uphill battle in a Congressional district with 158,970 active registered Democrats, 133,746 Republicans, and 192,496 no-party voters as of February 2014.

Returning to the Iowa legislature looks like a safer bet for Rogers. I have not yet heard of a Democratic candidate in House district 60. I posted a district map below, along with the latest voter registration numbers.

I consider Blum overwhelmingly favored to beat Steve Rathje in the IA-01 primary now. Although I don’t agree with Blum about many things, I admire his campaign work ethic and discipline. he has now scared off two Republicans with much stronger establishment connections. I believe Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen chickened out of this race because he was afraid he would lose the primary. Blum had already started making a case against Paulsen.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that just last month, former U.S. Representative and gubernatorial nominee Jim Nussle had endorsed Rogers in the GOP primary. He really did look like the preferred establishment candidate. I also forgot to mention that Marshalltown-based attorney Gail Boliver joined the Republican field in December. It’s hard for me to see a social moderate and fiscal conservative winning a GOP primary, especially since Blum has been campaigning across the district for more than a year now.

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey should end any speculation that the 2016 Iowa caucuses will be competitive if Hillary Clinton runs for president again.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be completely dominant. 67% want her to be the nominee, compared to 12% for Joe Biden, 5% for Elizabeth Warren, 3% for Mark Warner, 2% for Andrew Cuomo, and 1% for Cory Booker. Clinton’s dominance is near total- she has an 82/9 favorability rating and polls over 60% with liberals, moderates, men, women, young voters, and older voters alike.

Click here for full results and cross-tabs. The general election could be highly competitive in Iowa if Clinton is the nominee, but there is no sign of any vulnerability in the Democratic caucuses.

Time for bloggers and political analysts to stop claiming that Hillary has some lingering “Iowa problem” due to her allegedly “dismal” 2008 caucus showing. Fact is, Clinton didn’t do as badly here as many think. There is no evidence of any lingering fallout from her alleged failure to connect with Iowa Democrats.

It’s also time for the Des Moines Register to stop dancing around to avoid asking Iowa Democrats directly whom they would support in the 2016 caucuses. If you want to argue that the caucuses are a wide-open contest on the Democratic side, show us a poll to prove it.

P.S.–Public Policy Polling’s survey suggests that if Clinton doesn’t run, the caucuses will be much more competitive, with Vice President Joe Biden the early front-runner.  

Iowans who buy health insurance through Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield won’t be getting premium rebates anytime soon. Wellmark has a near-monopoly on Iowa’s individual and employer health insurance market. After the company announced last summer that it would not participate in the state’s health insurance exchange during its first year of operation, Democratic State Senators Jack Hatch and Matt McCoy questioned why the company was holding about $1.3 billion in reserves. The senators argued that the Iowa Insurance Division had previously justified Wellmark’s large cash reserves on the grounds that the company would be selling policies through the health exchange created under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Hatch and McCoy asked Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick Gerhart to study the issue, and in November, Gerhart retained Risk and Regulatory Consulting to investigate Wellmark’s reserve levels.

The consultants’ report, made public yesterday, concluded that Wellmark’s cash reserves are “reasonable and prudent.” Click through to read the full six-page report at the end of the article by Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register.

I’ve enclosed below a few excerpts from Leys’ report, Hatch’s letter to Gerhart last July, which provides background on the issue, and the joint statement Hatch and McCoy released yesterday. They noted that Wellmark “will be using its current reserves to protect them from risks that do not exist for them; namely, the Insurance Marketplace Exchange.” Hatch and McCoy added that the report “puts to rest the notion that the ACA could ever be the basis for a future premium increase by the company, at least in the next three years.”

After many years of double-digit percent increases in health insurance premiums, Wellmark did not raise premiums for many of its individual customers this year, presumably to deter them from shopping for a better deal on Iowa’s exchange. I predict Wellmark will cite the 2010 health care reform law as an excuse for raising premiums again before too long. Iowa individuals and families can purchase policies on the exchange from either Coventry or Co-Oportunity Health. Only Co-Oportunity is selling employer health insurance plans through Iowa’s exchange.

Here’s an open thread for discussing anything on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers. Most Iowans I’ve run into lately are a little down about the seemingly endless cold winter. (Single-digit highs in the Des Moines area today, and the 10-day forecast shows only one day that might reach the 30s.) How about some good news?

Dominoes continue to fall in the march toward equal rights for LGBT Americans. Yesterday Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed private businesses to discriminate against gay customers because of their religious beliefs. I posted an excerpt from her veto statement below. Before Brewer announced her decision, both of Arizona’s Republican U.S. senators, Jeff Flake and John McCain, spoke out against the legislation. Even a few years ago I would not have expected conservative Republicans to take a stand against this kind of discrimination.  

Meanwhile, last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a key provision of the Defense Against Marriage Act is influencing other judicial rulings. Yesterday a federal judge struck down the Texas ban on same-sex marriage, only two weeks after a similar ruling came down in Virginia. Federal judges struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban in December and Oklahoma’s in January. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will need to weigh in on a question it ducked last summer: whether state constitutional amendments on marriage violate equal protection rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

And now for something completely different: “74,476 Reasons You Should Always Get The Bigger Pizza.” Granted, the author doesn’t take into account any lingering New Year’s resolutions.

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey suggests that Governor Terry Branstad will have little trouble dispatching his primary challenger and goes into the general election as a favorite, despite an approval rating below 50 percent. This pdf file contains full results from PPP’s poll of 869 Iowa voters, including 283 Republican primary voters, between February 20 and 23. Respondents approved of Branstad’s job performance by a 45 margin to 40 percent margin; only 15 percent of respondents were unsure. The leading Democratic candidate for governor, State Senator Jack Hatch, is less well-known, with 16 percent approval, 15 percent disapproval, and 69 percent of respondents not sure. Branstad led Hatch by 48 percent to 36 percent, the same margin PPP found when it last polled Iowa in July 2013.

Anything below 50 percent approval is sometimes considered a “danger zone” for an incumbent. Paradoxically, Branstad may be comforted to know that among the Republican subsample in PPP’s survey, his approval was just 72 percent with 16 percent disapproving of his job performance and 12 percent unsure. A chart further down shows that 21 percent of “somewhat conservative” and 11 percent of “very conservative” respondents disapprove of Branstad. These voters may not be happy with the incumbent, but they are also not likely to gravitate toward a Democratic candidate for governor. A more worrying sign for Branstad would be that his approval is underwater with self-identified moderates in the poll (35 percent/43 percent).

Tom Hoefling, a former third-party presidential candidate who is challenging Branstad in the GOP primary, had extremely low name recognition among Republican respondents: 3 percent favorable, 9 percent unfavorable, 88 percent not sure. In a ballot test, 70 percent of Republicans picked Branstad and 11 percent Hoefling. Discontent among conservatives suggests that Hoefling can go higher, but I would be surprised if the protest vote in the June primary exceeded 25 percent.

Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread.