The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity has purchased IowaPolitics.com from WisPolitics Publishing, effective April 4. IowaPolitics.com “will continue to provide regular coverage of the Iowa legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, including agencies and other governmental entities […].”

After the jump I’ve posted some background on the website’s new owner, a 501(c)3 organization that advocates for government transparency but conceals its own donors.

Governor Terry Branstad told the crowd at a Republican fundraiser this weekend that he will use his veto power until the legislature sends him a two-year budget to sign.

He didn’t mention that Iowa lacks two-year revenue projections to back up his promises to spend no more than state government takes in. More background and details are after the jump.

Public hearings are scheduled today through Thursday in Council Bluffs, Bettendorf, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines to discuss the Legislative Services Agency’s redistricting proposal. Citizens will be able to listen in to some of those hearings at other locations around Iowa. Times and places are after the jump, along with details on other events taking place around the state this week.

As always, post a comment or contact me by e-mail if you know if a public event worth adding to this calendar.

Iowa legislators from both parties seem ready to approve the redistricting plan offered by the Legislative Services Agency on Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, whose Council Bluffs district barely changed, encouraged colleagues  to take a “cold, hard look” at the map, since the second offering “may not be as good.” Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley’s weekly e-mail blast spoke favorably about the redistricting process. Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, who was thrown into House district 8 with two other Republican representatives, said, “The next map might be something less desirable.” The Associated Press reported that “one of the potential rivals is retiring and the other laying plans to run for the senate.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy described the map as a “a wash, with good and bad on both sides.”

Two factors are pushing lawmakers to accept the plan. First,

[Democratic legislative staffer Ron] Parker noted that 27 House members and 14 senators are paired under the proposed map. He says that’s about half the number tossed together the last two times the Legislature approved districts.

In 1991, 50 House members and 20 senators were paired and those numbers were 39 and 25 when lawmakers drew new lines in 2001.  

Parker said Friday that many Republicans and Democrats assume there could be even more pairings if lawmakers reject the initial proposed map.  

Second, Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 pointed out Thursday that the extremely low population variance between the Congressional districts leaves both parties “in the dark for the second map” and without credible ways to assert that the plan violates Iowa Code:

The LSA has taken away the option of playing the odds. There are maps with smaller pop dev, but with questionable compactness. The LSA can choose to go with a higher pop dev based on this. How do you play it? Do they go down or up? And which pattern is most likely to be chosen?

The difference between this and 2001 is that the first map last time had multiple credible options with lower pop devs. Based on pattern analysis, you could go and plead what you considered important based on arguments fitted to the Iowa Code.

If yesterday had been like 2001, the first map would have had a mean deviation of 155 persons. Instead they went low, real low. […]

If the LSA had put out a first map with a mean pop dev comparable to 2001 (after adjusting for larger districts), you would have had the opportunity to argue about what represents IA better: regionalized vs balanced, for example. By offering up a map right on the edge, that has largely been rendered moot.

I’m assuming rational actors are involved. You always have to ask the question, what are the odds of my situation improving? If you can’t answer that (and it is very difficult here), bird in the hand applies.

Assuming this plan becomes law, some incumbents will have hard choices to make. John Deeth collected news here about legislators making arrangements to avoid elections against each other. My current State Senator Pat Ward is ready to move to a different part of the Des Moines suburbs to run in the new Senate district 22 instead of against Democratic Senator Matt McCoy in the new district 21. She may have competition in the Republican primary, because former WHO talk radio personality Steve Deace lives in what would be district 22 and sounds interested. Shortly after leaving WHO this year, Deace indicated that he would consider running for the Iowa Senate.

In other Iowa news, today is the second anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal blocked a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling in the state Senate this year and will do so next year too. If Republicans gain control of the upper chamber in the 2012 elections, they would need to pass a marriage amendment in the legislature in 2013, hold both chambers in 2014, and pass the amendment again in 2015 in order to get the measure on a statewide ballot in November 2016.

The most depressing news I’ve seen this weekend relates to the ongoing disaster in Japan. The death toll from last month’s earthquake and tsunami could exceed 16,000.  Authorities don’t have a solid plan for disposing of radioactive water used to cool reactors and spent fuel pools at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear facility. Now some of the radioactive water is leaking into the ocean, and the early attempts to stop the leaking have failed.

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

When Iowans elected a new Secretary of State in November, county election officials (Auditors) adapted quickly. Secretary-elect Schultz had already riled the auditors during the campaign. He had insinuated that voting rolls were improperly managed, and he had called for new laws to block imaginary illegal voters.

The auditors initiated a study of photo ID requirements for voters when Schultz told them he would press for such a law in Iowa. A handful of other states have a similar requirement. Seven auditors traveled to two of those states, Indiana and Florida. Their 14-page report is now available on the front page of their website.

Reading between the lines of the report one can see the ID laws don't prevent this imaginary fraud so much as move it to a new place in the voting system. Voters can escape the photo requirement by voting absentee in Indiana, for example. One Indiana official said he encourages voters to use absentee ballots if the ID rule is a stumbling block for them. However, the Iowa report notes

Since mailed absentee ballots are already the area of the election process that is most prone to voter fraud, this “go-around” actually opens the election process to greater potential for voter fraud.

Indeed Indiana and Florida each cite their own history of absentee ballot fraud yet both still permit absentee voters.

It is not clear if either state relies on the photo rule anyway. Indiana absentees avoid the photo law. At the polls it is common to rely more on signature similarity than to study the photo ID, according to one Indiana official. Furthermore, Indiana allows names that don't exactly match each other, citing ten variations of the name J. Crew, for example, that would all be allowed to vote with the same ID card.

Florida voters can avoid presenting a photo if they have two forms of ID or if their signature on voting day matches a prior signature in the state's database.

Look-alike brothers Bill Jones and Bob Jones could probably vote for each other in Indiana as easily as in Iowa. People with paperwork skills can probably navigate the system with little hassle. I don't think the voter ID demand is even intending to stop them, both because it is so rare that one voter impersonates another, and because that is no way to steal an election.

This campaign may be driven by a widely held notion among Republican activists that “DemocRATS” don't win elections unless they cheat. Rather than rely on evidence for this view, they hold it as a matter of faith. They proceed to claim it's just a sensible requirement, thus avoiding the need think clearly about the notion.

The auditor's report does not advocate or condemn voter ID laws. Auditors knew they had to avoid that policy debate. Instead it explains the stories of the other two states and recommends some minimum standards for Iowa in case the legislature agrees to erect this new blockade. They include “a significant financial investment” in voter education for the indefinite future, money for free ID cards, money to defend the law against a likely court challenge, and money for improving the technology that links databases of registered voters and licensed drivers. That's four new lines of expenditure, estimated to exceed two million dollars a year in the report.

But since the report was written, Secretary Schultz has reduced funding for Iowa's innovative poll worker technology tool known as Precinct Atlas. Counties who use the optional device must divide up the $30,000 cost formerly paid by the state.

Secretary Schultz says his new ID plan will make elections “secure.” County auditors who used the Precinct Atlas made the same claim for it. Security is in the eye of the beholder.

cross posted at Iowa Voters.

The abortion issue magically transforms conservatives from people who want to keep bureaucrats from getting between you and your doctor into people eager to let the government limit pregnant women’s medical care. The Iowa House demonstrated that contradiction again yesterday, as representatives approved a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks gestation.

House File 657 is modeled on a Nebraska statute with the intent of stopping Omaha physician Leroy Carhart from opening an abortion clinic in Iowa. State representatives voted 60 to 39 to send the bill to the Senate. The yes votes included 56 Republicans and four Democrats: Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Brian Quirk (district 15), Kurt Swaim (district 94) and Roger Thomas (district 24). Three first-term Republicans–Kim Pearson (district 42), Glen Massie (district 74) and Tom Shaw (district 8)–voted no, along with the rest of the House Democratic caucus. Those Republicans have argued against the bill because it would ban less than 1 percent of abortions in Iowa; their opposition forced House Republican leaders to pull the bill out of the House Human Resources Committee and send it to Government Oversight instead.

Excerpts from yesterday’s arguments for and against House File 657 are after the jump, along with thoughts about the bill’s prospects in the Iowa Senate.

Overshadowed by other news from the capitol this week, the Iowa House approved the first budget bill of the 2011 session. In keeping with Governor Terry Branstad’s desire to move Iowa to biennial budgeting, the House Appropriations Committee wrote House File 642 to include two years of funding for the Department of Transportation. In most areas of the DOT’s work, House File 642 allocates the same amount of money for fiscal year 2013 (July 2012 through June 2013) as it does for fiscal year 2012 (beginning this July, ending next June).

Since Iowa Republicans have promised countless times not to spend more than the state takes in, it’s important to remember that there are no Iowa revenue forecasts for fiscal year 2013. The Revenue Estimating Conference meets periodically to revise revenue projections for the current budget year and the one to come, but even the most preliminary numbers for fiscal year 2013 have yet to appear. Iowa law restricts general fund spending to no more than 99 percent of projected revenues, but if Republicans who control the Iowa House write the remaining budget bills they way they wrote House File 642, they will have no idea whether they are spending 89 percent or 99 percent or 109 percent of state revenues in 2013. They’ll be making a shot in the dark.

Over the last several decades, many states have moved away from biennial budgeting. It’s hard enough to forecast revenues 12-18 months into the future, let alone for a full year beyond that. Minnesota’s use of biennial budgets is one reason why its fiscal problems during the “Great Recession” were much worse than Iowa’s. But at least in Minnesota, lawmakers have two-year revenue projections to work with when they draft a two-year spending plan. Iowa House Republicans seem ready to take on faith that revenues will be at least as high in fiscal year 2013 as in fiscal year 2012.

State Representative Tyler Olson, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, argued against pulling numbers “out of thin air” for House File 642. During floor debate on March 30, he offered an amendment to make the bill cover one fiscal year instead. His amendment failed on a party-line 58 to 40 vote (pdf). Shortly after, House File 642 passed 60 to 39, with only Democrat Brian Quirk (district 15) joining all Republicans present to vote yes. House File 642 contains a $5.2 million appropriation to replace a facility in New Hampton (Chickasaw County), which is in Quirk’s district.

In the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate, biennial budgeting will be a tough sell. I expect the Senate Appropriations Committee to strike all fiscal year 2013 appropriations from House File 642. Add this to the list of contentious budget issues that Senate Democrats, the governor and House Republicans must settle during the next month. I have no idea what concessions either side will be willing to make.

Speaking of transportation, Bleeding Heartland readers may recall that Branstad hasn’t yet appointed a new director for the Iowa DOT. Instead, he asked Nancy Richardson to stay on in that role through the end of the 2011 legislative session. Branstad’s spokesman said in December that the administration needed extra time to do a nationwide search for a director. That would be unlike the way Branstad filled other state government positions. Jason Clayworth reported this week that as governor-elect, Branstad interviewed only one candidate for many jobs. Often Branstad overlooked all applicants to choose a person who hadn’t even applied for the position.

“In most cases I sought out people for these positions,” Branstad said. “Some of them applied, but, for the most part, I really went after people who I thought would be the best.”

I still wonder whether Branstad has always had a particular person in mind to run the DOT. Delaying that appointment until after the legislative session would make sense if Branstad’s choice was unavailable until late spring or summer, or was controversial enough to face problems during the Iowa Senate confirmation process.

Former State Representative Roger Wendt of Sioux City died last night at the age of 77, following a long battle with lung cancer. After many years of remission, his cancer returned last year, forcing Wendt to step down after four terms in the Iowa House.

Wendt spent more than 40 years of his life working in education, first as a teacher and later as a principal. As chair of the Iowa House Education Committee, he was a crucial backer of key bills, from the 2007 “Iowa Safe School” anti-bullying act to the statewide voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds to the model core curriculum. Wendt also supported changing state law to address inequities in school building funding between rural school districts and those in urban or suburban areas with major shopping venues.

I didn’t know Wendt, but people who worked with him always spoke very highly of his professionalism and concern for Iowa children.

The Iowa House won’t gavel in until 3:30 pm on April 4 so that members can attend their former colleague’s funeral. Visitation for Wendt takes place Sunday, April 3, from 3 to 5 pm at the Meyer Brothers Chapel, 3220 Stone Park Blvd in Sioux City. Funeral services will be held at 10:30 am on April 4 at Faith Lutheran Church, 3101 Hamilton Blvd in Sioux City.

Share any thoughts or memories of Roger Wendt in this thread.

UPDATE: Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal posted his tribute to Wendt here.

Minutes ago the Legislative Services Agency released a new map of Iowa political boundaries, containing four Congressional districts, 50 state Senate districts and 100 state House districts. I don’t see the map on the state legislature’s official site yet but will update this post as more information becomes available today.

This thread is for any comments related to Iowa redistricting. I posted a timeline of upcoming events in the process after the jump.

I liked one veteran Republican lawmaker’s advice:

If the map is good to you, stay quiet, advises Rep. Stewart Iverson, R-Clarion, who was Senate majority during redistricting leader 10 years ago. If it’s not, stay quieter.

On the other hand, Kathie Obradovich’s counsel to legislators in today’s column baffled me:

Redistricting will be painful. Do it fast. [….] Hurt feelings and simmering resentment over redistricting can pollute the caucus and spill over into discussion of other bills. Best to get it over with as soon as humanly possible.

We’re talking about a map that will affect Iowa elections for a decade. If the Legislative Services Agency doesn’t produce a map that seems fair to both parties the first time, have them do it again. There is no perfect redistricting plan, but improving a mediocre map is more important than wrapping things up fast at the capitol.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reports that the map throws Republican Representatives Tom Latham and Steve King together in the new fourth Congressional district. Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack are both in the new first district. Representative Leonard Boswell has the third district to himself, and the second district (which conveniently contains Christie Vilsack’s home town of Mount Pleasant) is open. Presumably Loebsack would move to the second district if this map were accepted.

Iowa Public Radio’s Jeneane Beck tweets, “If new map approved – 14 State Senate districts with more than one incumbent and seven with no incumbent.” In that case, I doubt this map will be approved.

SECOND UPDATE: The maps are now up on the legislature’s website, along with the proposed redistricting plan report.

THIRD UPDATE: Although Leonard Boswell has the new IA-03 to himself, it’s not a good map for him, with the district stretching to the south and west of Polk County. That reminds me of the IA-04 map from the 1990s, which helped bury Neal Smith.

I suspect Iowa House Republicans won’t be happy to see nine new districts where GOP incumbents would face each other. Three incumbents–Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, Stew Iverson and Henry Rayhons–all reside in the new House district 8. Only three House districts are home to more than one Democratic incumbent. The new district 13 in Sioux City would pit first-term Republican Jeremy Taylor against first-term Democrat Chris Hall.

FOURTH UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added some highlights from the Legislative Services Agency’s report. The districts don’t look very compact to me, but they are fairly close in population.

IA-01 has 761,548 people, -41 from ideal

IA-02 has 761,624 people, +35 from ideal

IA-03 has 761,612 people, +23 from ideal

IA-04 has 761,571 people, -18 from ideal

I also posted reaction comments from Representatives Braley and Boswell, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky.

You can find the maps for individual Iowa House and Senate districts here and here. As a Windsor Heights Democrat, I don’t like the looks of my new House district 43 or Senate district 22.

FIFTH UPDATE: Swing State Project helpfully provides the presidential results for each new Congressional district.

IA-01 went 58 percent Obama, 40.1 percent McCain in 2008, and 53.1 percent Kerry, 46.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-02 went 56.6 percent Obama, 41.2 percent McCain in 2008, and 52.5 percent Kerry, 46.5 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-03 went 51.9 percent Obama, 45.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 47.1 percent Kerry, 52.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-04 went 48.1 percent Obama, 49.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 44.2 percent Kerry, 55.0 percent Bush in 2004.

FINAL UPDATE: Added Loebsack’s statement after the jump, which makes clear he would move into IA-02 if this map is adopted.

Bleeding Heartland will continue to cover the implications of the first redistricting plan next week. I’ll be curious to see what arguments people make at the public hearings, aside from complaints about communities of interest being divided. Not only are Linn and Johnson counties separated, but the Des Moines metro area is split among three districts.

Governor Terry Branstad’s plan to transform the Iowa Department of Economic Development into a public-private partnership won approval from the Iowa House this week. House File 590 would create an Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress, with three separate boards supervising various aspects of economic development work. Supporters say they have worked to make Branstad’s preferred model more transparent, but its convoluted structure invites the kind of abuses seen in other states where private entities have control over economic development incentives.

More details on House File 590 and its path through the Iowa House are after the jump.

“The Unsafe Bridges of Iowa Counties” wouldn’t be an appealing feature film, but it could be an appropriate subject for a documentary. The Transportation for America coalition released a report today on the state of bridges in the U.S., and the results are not pretty for Iowa. Nationwide, “69,223 bridges – 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. – are classified as ‘structurally deficient,’ requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.” Table 1 and Appendix A of the full report (pdf) rank the states by percentage of structurally deficient bridges. Iowa’s percentage is nearly twice the national average: 21.7 percent of our state’s bridges are deficient. Only Pennsylvania and Oklahoma scored worse on this metric. Iowa is among just five states in which more than 20 percent of bridges are structurally deficient.

Appendix B shows the two busiest structurally deficient bridges in each state. In Iowa, those are an I-80/I-35 bridge over a drainage ditch in Polk County (average daily traffic 82,100 vehicles) and an I-29 bridge over the Floyd River in Woodbury County (average daily traffic 42,100 vehicles).

Appendix C shows the 100 worst counties nationwide in terms of percentage of deficient bridges. Iowa has 17 counties on this list, more than any other state.

Iowa has an unusually large number of towns and more road miles per capita than any other state, to my knowledge. Historically, our state’s political leaders have been reluctant to borrow to pay for infrastructure needs, which explains Iowa’s relatively low debt load and the furious Republican reaction to the last administration’s I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative. Some states routinely borrow to cover infrastructure projects, including our neighbor to the north. I wonder if Minnesota’s much larger state borrowing than Iowa over the years is one reason the state does relatively well in Transportation for America’s report (8.8 percent of bridges in the state are structurally deficient).

In the past, federal highway money has gone predominantly toward building new roads. The Transportation for America report advocates more federal assistance to states for fixing roads and bridges:

Allowing roads and bridges to slip into disrepair ultimately costs state and local governments billions more than the cost of regular, timely repair. Over a 25-year period, deferring maintenance of bridges and highways can cost three times as much as preventative repairs. The backlog also increases safety risks, hinders economic prosperity and significantly burdens taxpayers.

Preservation efforts can also extend the expected service life of a road for an additional 18 years, preventing the need for major reconstruction or replacement.4 In addition to the safety imperative, investing in the construction, expansion and repair of our nation’s transportation infrastructure creates jobs today while laying the foundation for long- term economic prosperity. Repair work on roads and bridges generates 16 percent more jobs than construction of new bridges and roads.5

A recent report on the use of federal stimulus funds for transportation showed that maintenance projects created more jobs per dollar spent than new road construction.

Transportation for America’s full report is here. After the jump I’ve posted the 17 Iowa counties that made Appendix C (worst 100 counties nationwide) and the percentage of deficient bridges in each. I also posted an excerpt from the report explaining the criteria for naming a bridge “structurally deficient.”

This page at Transportation for America’s website includes a map and chart with information about all 99 Iowa counties: number of bridges, number of structurally deficient bridges, percent of bridges that are structurally deficient, bridge average annual daily traffic and average daily traffic on structurally deficient bridges. After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt from that page showing Iowa’s five best and five worst counties in this area.

Via John Deeth’s blog, I see Jake Wagman has a scoop in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

“Tell Christie I think it’s a great idea,” [Senator Claire] McCaskill said to [U.S. Secretary of Agriculture] Tom Vilsack after a press conference at the ADM grain elevator in St. Louis. “Tell her I’ll come up and knock on some doors!”

McCaskill’s endorsement is not without some complications, and not just because Iowa’s caucus status make its state politics of national import.

Census results will force Iowa, like Missouri, to shed one of its congressional districts in 2012. That means if Vilsack, who recently left her day job, runs, she’ll have to challenge an incumbent — most likely U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, an eight-term Democrat and Missouri native who represents the Des Moines area.

McCaskill knows a thing or two about primaries; she successfully challenged Missouri’s incumbent Democratic governor in 2004. I doubt the backing of a neighboring state’s senator would count for much if Christie Vilsack ends up running against Boswell in the redrawn third Congressional district, but it would be an ironic shift in alliances. In early 2008, McCaskill endorsed Barack Obama for president, just when Hillary Clinton’s campaign was riding the momentum from winning the New Hampshire primary. Both Tom and Christie Vilsack had campaigned their hearts out for Clinton before the Iowa caucuses. Boswell had also endorsed Clinton for president and pledged his support to her as a superdelegate. He continued to back Clinton in the spring of 2008, even though he was under pressure to switch after Obama carried IA-03 in the Iowa caucuses.

Because she is from Mount Pleasant, Vilsack could decide to challenge Representative Dave Loebsack in the 2012 Democratic primary to represent the second Congressional district. However, my hunch is she won’t run for Congress at all if she doesn’t like the look of the new IA-03.

Share any thoughts about Iowa’s 2012 Congressional races in this thread. Can’t wait to see that map on Thursday morning.

MARCH 31 UPDATE: I stand corrected. The proposed IA-02 map is a dream come true for Christie Vilsack. It’s an empty, Democratic-leaning district containing Mount Pleasant. IA-03 is much less appealing, heading south and west from Polk County without any of the Democratic-leaning neighbors (Story, Jasper, Marshall).

President Barack Obama addressed the nation tonight regarding our nine-day-old military intervention in Libya. He explained why the U.S. and its allies in the United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and why it was not in “our national interest” to let Colonel Moammar Gaddafi continue killing his country’s people. Obama emphasized that “in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.” It took the international community more than a year to settle on a similar sequence of actions to curtail violence in Bosnia during the 1990s.  

Obama promised to work with allies to assist the people of Libya and support a political transition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to London tomorrow to “meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. ”

Obama also made clear that the U.S. will not try to “overthrow Gaddafi by force” with troops on the ground, because we cannot afford to repeat our experience in Iraq:

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. […]

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

The full text of Obama’s remarks, as prepared, are at the end of this post.

Reacting to the president’s speech, Senator Chuck Grassley said he “was an early advocate of a no-fly zone,” which has helped the Libyan opposition make progress “despite the President’s delay in offering this help [….].” Grassley added that Obama hasn’t made clear how long our mission in Libya will last, and said Congress should discuss our commitment there.

Senator Tom Harkin said that given Gaddafi’s “humanitarian atrocities, I was supportive of the initial UN-backed military strikes.  But with the U.S. ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have concerns about an open-ended engagement in Libya.” He added, “while there is merit in handing over operations to NATO, ultimately, a political solution is needed to end the conflict in Libya.”

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released a statement expressing concern “that tonight we didn’t get a clear and accurate accounting from the President on how much this conflict in Libya is going to cost American taxpayers. We’ve got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and Americans deserve to hear from our President what this third conflict is going to cost us. I look forward to meeting with Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton later this week and hearing their explanation of the costs of this operation and their strategy for moving forward in Libya.” Last week Braley asked Obama to provide a full cost accounting for our latest military mission. He was the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on our new involvement in Libya.

The complete statements from Grassley, Harkin and Braley are after the jump. I will update this post later if Iowa’s other members of Congress comment on the president’s speech.

UPDATE: After returning from a weekend trip to Afghanistan, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) spoke to reporters on March 28 (before Obama’s speech):

Noting the U.S. still has troops in Iraq, Loebsack said involvement in Libya raises concerns about overextending the military.

However, he said, Petraeus told the congressman he doesn’t expect enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya “to have any major effect on what we’re doing in Afghanistan.”

“Our troops (in Afghanistan) are doing their mission,” he said. “They have the resources they need to do their mission. That’s critical.”

As of March 29, I still have not seen any reaction to Obama’s speech from Loebsack or Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve KIng (IA-05).

SECOND UPDATE: Further comments from Loebsack, Boswell and Latham are now below.

Political junkies anxiously await the Legislative Services Agency’s release of a new Iowa map at 8:15 am on March 31. To learn more about the process, check out the “Introduction to Redistricting in Iowa” from the state legislature’s official website. The Legislative Guide to Redistricting in Iowa (pdf) contains many details on the history of redistricting and legal requirements governing the process for drawing new maps. Here’s a timeline of what to expect during this process.

March 31: The Legislative Services Agency will deliver a congressional and legislative redistricting plan to both chambers of the General Assembly (the law requires this to be done by April 1).

April 4-7: The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission must “schedule and conduct at least three public hearings in different geographic regions of the state and to issue a report to the General Assembly summarizing the information and testimony received.” This year the commission scheduled four public hearings, one for each Congressional district. Locations and times of public hearings scheduled for April 4-7 are at the end of this post.

April 13: The commission must then report to the legislature on the input from public hearings, no later than two weeks after the Legislative Services Agency submitted the plan.

Second half of April: The Iowa House and Senate must bring a redistricting bill to a vote “expeditiously” but no sooner than three days after receiving the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission’s report. The map receives an up or down vote; lawmakers cannot amend it during this stage of the process.

Late May or early June: If the Iowa House or Senate rejects the first redistricting plan, or Governor Terry Branstad vetoes it, the Legislative Services Agency has 35 days to submit a second plan to the legislature. “The second plan must be prepared in accordance with the reasons cited, if any, by the Senate or the House by resolution or the Governor by veto message, for the failure to approve the first plan, as long as the reasons do not conflict with any redistricting standard provided by the Code.” No public hearings are required on the second redistricting plan. The Iowa House and Senate must wait at least seven days after it has been submitted to vote on it, and again, no amendments are allowed. Branstad would have to call a special session of the legislature for this, since the Iowa House and Senate are expected to adjourn for the year in early May.

Late summer: If either chamber of the legislature or the governor rejects the second plan, the Legislative Services Agency is required to submit a third map within 35 days of when the second plan was rejected. No public hearings are required. The legislature must wait at least seven days to vote on the third plan, which can be amended like an ordinary bill. However, the Republican-controlled Iowa House and the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate would probably find it difficult to amend the map to a mutually agreeable form.

September: If no consensus is reached on a third map, or Branstad vetoes a map approved by the legislature, the Iowa Supreme Court would take responsibility for drawing a valid map and would have to complete the process by December 31. If the legislature enacts a plan that is successfully challenged in the Iowa Supreme Court, the seven justices would take over the process of drawing a new apportionment plan. They would have 90 days from the date of their ruling striking down the map to complete the process.

The Des Moines rumor mill says politicians in both parties are wary of letting the Iowa Supreme Court draw political lines for the next decade. In all likelihood state legislators and the governor will sign off on either the first or the second map offered by the Legislative Services Agency. UPDATE: Citing unnamed Republican and Democratic insiders, Cityview’s Civic Skinny predicts the first map will be rejected “no matter how fair and how close to perfect it is,” but legislators will “avoid a third map that could conceivably be defeated.”

After the jump I’ve posted details on many events going on around the state this week. Scroll to the bottom to find out where and when the public can comment on the new Iowa map between April 4 and 7.

Although the 60-40 Republican majority leaves Iowa House Democrats few opportunities to block legislation, the Democratic caucus has taken a high-profile stands against some GOP proposals this year. House Democrats spoke passionately against preschool cuts in the first major bill of the 2011 session. Democrats fought the GOP’s bill to restrict collective bargaining at public rallies, all night in the House Labor Committee and for days on the House floor. The ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee spoke out against the GOP’s income tax cut bill, and Democrats tried to redirect that proposal toward middle income Iowans.

In contrast, House Democrats have made little noise about bills that elevate the needs of agribusiness over the public interest. Earlier this month, nearly a quarter of the Democratic caucus voted to protect factory farms from undercover recordings to expose animal abuses. I saw no public comments from House minority leaders opposing that bill, which may well be unconstitutional.

Last week state representatives approved House File 643, which transfers several water quality responsibilities from the Department of Natural Resources to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. After minimal floor debate, seven Democrats voted with all the Republicans present for a bill that would impair efforts to limit water pollution. I saw no public comments or press releases from House minority leaders criticizing the bill or decrying its passage.

Follow me after the jump for more on House File 643 and its implications.

Iowa will soon introduce a season for hunting mourning doves, which had been protected for nearly 100 years as a symbol of peace. Last week, with no debate in the Iowa House or Senate, Senate File 464 passed both chambers easily. Governor Terry Branstad signed the bill into law with the usual photo-op for key backers, but he didn’t seem keen on media attention. The official press release on signing Senate File 464 lacked any quotes about how great the new law will be.

Over the decades, many Iowa lawmakers introduced dove-hunting legislation, and the Republican-controlled House and Senate approved a bill in 2001, but Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed it. Feelings on this issue have never broken down strictly on party lines; Democratic Senator Dick Dearden of Des Moines has been one of the most committed dove-hunting advocates. Senate File 464 passed the Iowa Senate on a bipartisan 30-18 vote; 19 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted yes, while 15 Democrats and three Republicans voted no. The bill cleared the House by 58 to 39; 48 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted yes, while 11 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted no. You can find the Iowa Senate roll call here and the House roll call here.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board argued that legislators should have respected tradition and left the ban in place. In a Mason-Dixon poll of 625 Iowa voters between March 17 and 19, 54 percent of Iowans were against legalizing dove-hunting, while just 25 percent supported it. The Humane Society of the United States commissioned the survey, which found majority opposition in the Republican, Democratic and independent sub-samples.

Although I don’t hunt, I don’t feel more connected to mourning doves than to other wild birds. On the other hand, I believe legislation to expand hunting should have included provisions to protect wildlife from lead poisoning, which is a significant problem in Iowa.

Other news that caught my eye this week:

The Des Moines Register’s chief political reporter since 2002, Tom Beaumont, took a new job as the Des Moines correspondent for Associated Press.

As Des Moines Correspondent, Beaumont will join a political coverage team that includes state government reporter Mike Glover and Iowa City Correspondent Ryan J. Foley. Along with reporters from across the region and the AP’s Washington staff, they will ensure the AP’s report on the caucuses and the 2012 election is consistently first and always complete.

With only nine or ten months remaining before the Iowa caucuses, that’s not a timely departure for the Register.

Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy informed the Board of Regents that he will step down in the summer of 2012. He’s held the job since July 2001. I hope that before he leaves, Geoffroy will do the right thing and help the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture find strong leadership and more independence within the university. His successor won’t want to rile up the corporate interests that helped ISU set fundraising records during the past decade.  

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

UPDATE: Todd Dorman goes over the unusual process through which the dove-hunting bill passed:

Dove hunting did not soar to passage on gossamer wings, folks. It was more like a roach skittering across the kitchen floor in the dark, shielded from scrutiny by quick, deft maneuvers.

The dove bill was off the radar until just before a legislative funnel deadline that exterminates bills that don’t clear a committee. At the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee’s final meeting before the deadline, its chairman, Sen. Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, sprung the bill and pushed it through. The bill was not on the committee’s published agenda. Surprise.

It passed the full Senate. That sent the bill to the House, where, normally, it would go through a House committee before being taken up on the floor. That provides some time for input and deliberation. Lawmakers can even call a public hearing.

Instead, just one day after Senate passage, House Republican leaders called up another Senate bill having to do with raccoon hunting. The House amended the raccoon bill so that it actually became the Senate dove bill. That very unusual bit of procedural crossbreeding allowed the dove bill to skip the House committee process entirely. Soon, the bill flew to Gov. Terry Branstad, who signed it fast and in private.

Geraldine Ferraro died today at age 75, after battling multiple myeloma for 13 years, far longer than she was expected to survive when diagnosed. She became the first woman named to a major-party national ticket in the U.S. when Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate in 1984. Ferraro acknowledged that she would not have been Mondale’s choice for vice president had she been a man. The Democratic nominee was trailing President Ronald Reagan badly in the polls and needed something to shake up the campaign. Ferraro was supposed to turn the emerging “gender gap” in American politics to the Democrats’ favor.

I remember discounting the rumors that a woman might be nominated for vice president. The Reagan years had rapidly developed my cynicism. It was a big deal just to have a woman on the “short list,” so I figured that talking Ferraro was going to be the Mondale camp’s gesture toward women, and we’d have to wait another cycle or two to see a woman on a ticket. But after watching Ferraro’s speech at the national convention, this liberal teenage girl was so excited and inspired that I briefly forgot what I knew about Mondale having no chance to be elected.

Journalists covering the campaign picked Ferraro apart; you can read the gory details in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times obituaries. She wasn’t very experienced in terms of media relations, and she was a strong woman, so she was an easy target. One manufactured controversy after another dominated stories about her campaign, and I remember lots of speculation about her Italian-American husband’s possible mob ties. Meanwhile, media provided scant coverage when Reagan’s Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan was indicted in September 1984, six weeks before the presidential election. You’d think the first-ever indictment of a sitting cabinet secretary would be a bigger news story than some of the garbage being thrown at Ferraro, but you would be wrong. (Donovan was later acquitted.)

Bleeding Heartland readers too young to remember the 1984 campaign may know of Ferraro mainly because in March 2008, she asserted that Barack Obama’s race gave him an advantage in the presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton: “Sexism is a bigger problem [than racism in the United States] […] It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.” The ensuing furor prompted Ferraro to resign from Clinton’s presidential campaign fundraising committee, though she stood by her remarks. At the time, I felt many Obama supporters blew Ferraro’s comments way out of proportion. Her perspective was shaped by decades of personal experience with sexism, like law school professors who felt she had taken “a man’s rightful place.”

Representative Bruce Braley said in a statement today, “Geraldine Ferraro was a great leader and a remarkable woman. She not only made history, she inspired generations of women to do the same. She will be greatly missed, but her influence will live on.”  I will update this post with further Iowa reaction to Ferraro’s passing.

Share your own memories of Ferraro and her political career in this thread.

UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley posted to Twitter, “Geraldine Ferraro was an xtraordinary M of Cong. A person easy get along w. True abt my working w her”

Ferraro’s father died when she was eight years old. Here’s a reflection she wrote on how losing a parent so young affected her life.

LATE UPDATE: Joan Walsh’s reflection on Ferraro’s life and career is worth reading.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has asked President Barack Obama to disclose all costs associated with the current U.S. military intervention in Libya. From Braley’s March 24 press release:

“Just as we’re struggling to cut federal spending and bring down our national deficit, we’re also faced with the challenge of managing two military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we’re going to be involved in Libya, we must know how much a third military conflict will cost us,” said Rep. Braley. “I know I’m not the only who’s asking these questions – Speaker Boehner, for one, has also expressed his concerns – and I think it’s important that the President give us and all American taxpayers an accurate answer on this issue. I will always stand with people fighting for freedom and democracy around the world, and I know both President Obama and Speaker Boehner would too. But America has to address many important challenges right here at home – with spending as the most critical one. And before we spend any money abroad, I want to know how much it’s going to cost us.”

The full text of Braley’s letter to President Obama is after the jump.

Braley is right to ask substantive questions about the U.S. operation in Libya. I have been surprised by the Iowa delegation’s muted reaction to our latest military intervention, given that Obama launched this operation without Congressional authorization. To my knowledge, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and Representatives Dave Loebsack, Leonard Boswell, Tom Latham and Steve King have not issued any official statement regarding “Operation Odyssey Dawn.”

Braley’s letter is consistent with his increased focus on fighting the deficit since last November’s election. As I’ve written before, I disagree with austerity movement types who make the deficit out to be our country’s biggest threat. Our national strength depends more on fixing other problems: reducing unemployment, reorienting our energy policy and fixing the still-broken health care system, to name a few. Getting the economy moving would do more to shrink the budget gap than the non-defense discretionary spending cuts deficit hawks demand.

I give Braley credit for acknowledging that the U.S. doesn’t have unlimited free money to blow on wars around the globe. The same can’t be said for many members of Congress who claim to care about excessive government spending.

UPDATE: Braley issued this statement on March 25:

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after White House spokesperson Jay Carney was asked about Rep. Braley’s letter calling for an accounting of the Libyan conflict. According to USA Today, Carney replied to reporters, “there are contingency funds…for this kind of thing.” Today Rep. Braley said:

“Yesterday I asked for accountability on the question of how much this conflict is costing us, and I have yet to see a clear response from the White House. The fact that funds for contingency military operations exist doesn’t answer the question of how much we’re spending, and will continue to spend, in Libya. I’m not the only one asking these questions – the American people are demanding answers too. And the President must give Congress and all taxpayers an accurate answer.”

Yesterday, Rep. Braley sent a letter to President Obama asking for a full accounting of the Libyan conflict and the costs to taxpayers. Speaker Boehner sent a similar letter to the President. Rep. Braley has previously called for a full accounting of the human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Legislation aimed at encouraging the expansion of nuclear power in Iowa is “a bad idea that gets worse by the minute,” according to a new report by Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic analysis at the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility commissioned the report, and Cooper summarized its conclusions at a Des Moines press conference today. He analyzed the nuclear industry as a whole and lessons learned from states that have adopted legislation similar to Iowa’s House File 561 and Senate File 390.

Cooper’s report focuses on the immense costs that this legislation would impose on customers of MidAmerican Energy, even if no new nuclear facility is ever built. The average MidAmerican customer may see utility bills go up $50 per month before any nuclear reactor comes online. MidAmerican President Bill Fehrman told Iowa lawmakers yesterday that nuclear power is less expensive than pursuing other methods of generating more electricity, such as solar power and natural gas. Perhaps he was unaware of recent comments by Exelon CEO John Rowe, who runs the largest nuclear plant operator in the U.S. Rowe is convinced that

“At the present time in the United States, new nuclear power reactors are not economical anyway with low load growth and very cheap natural gas. Natural gas generation is now the economic way of choice for low-carbon electricity and that will be true for at least a decade,” he said.

Cooper’s report demonstrates that nuclear power is not competitive with any other major method of producing electricity in terms of cost or efficiency. Massive up-front costs are one reason why nuclear projects in other parts of the U.S. have gone nowhere despite federal loan guarantees (see also here). Building nuclear power plants will only become more expensive in light of the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima facility.

Nuclear power projects also create relatively “few jobs per dollar invested,” “drain resources from household budgets,” “raise the cost of doing business” and primarily benefit foreign equipment vendors. Because the licensing and construction process for nuclear power plants is so slow, Cooper writes, “choosing nuclear reactors over efficiency and renewables not only produces many fewer local jobs in the aggregate, but takes much longer to get those jobs.”

For decades, activists opposed to nuclear power have focused on health and security concerns, such as the lack of appropriate long-term storage for nuclear waste, or the potential for an accident or terrorist attack to release large amounts of radiation. Cooper’s report shows that even if one sets aside all health and environmental concerns, nuclear power is a raw deal for consumers. MidAmerican ratepayers are unlikely ever to break even on this deal. The American Association for Retired Persons has been trying to get legislators to view the proposed bills from this perspective as well.

Governor Terry Branstad’s mind appears to be made up: he supports anything MidAmerican wants to help it build a nuclear power plant, because “we really can’t do it all with renewable.” I reject Branstad’s premise that efficiency measures and renewable energy projects can’t meet Iowa’s baseload electricity needs, but even if that were true, new natural gas-powered plants would be a far better use of resources than nuclear.

House File 561 has already cleared the Iowa House Commerce Committee and probably will pass the House easily. Senate File 390 is still being considered in subcommittee, and nine Democratic senators have urged their colleagues to shelve the proposal. (Cooper notes that other states that were considering similar legislation have put it on hold following the crisis in Japan.) Senate Commerce Committee Chair Swati Dandekar has scheduled a subcommittee meeting on this bill Monday, March 28 from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm in room 116 at the state capitol. Opponents of this bill should contact their representatives and senators, and members of the Senate Commerce Committee in particular.

After the jump I’ve posted today’s release from Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility and several longer excerpts from Cooper’s report on advanced cost recovery for nuclear reactors.

UPDATE: MidAmerican disputes Cooper’s estimates on how much the average ratepayer’s utility bill would go up. I don’t put much stock in estimates from a company whose president claims nuclear power is less expensive than natural gas.

SECOND UPDATE: Paul Deaton of Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility discusses MidAmerican’s shifting cost estimates and argues, “no single document lays out all of the impacts of HF 561 and SF 390 to consumers and that’s the point. The Iowa legislature needs to slow down, get the facts and then make a decision about nuclear power.”

The Board of Regents approved a significant tuition hike yesterday in response to expected reductions in state funding for the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. B.A. Morelli reported for the Iowa City Press-Citizen,

In-state students at UI, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will see a 5 percent increase. But there are additional mandatory fees, and out-of-state students and students in specialized programs, such as business, engineering and nursing, will have increases up to 41.4 percent.

Details and background information are after the jump.