Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller started running television commercials this week. I didn’t see the video on YouTube or his campaign website, but I taped it during the lunchtime newscast on KCCI. UPDATE: The video is now available on YouTube:

My transcript:

Male voice-over: His number one priority: protecting Iowans. Attorney General Tom Miller [photo of Miller, words “Tom Miller Protecting Iowans” on screen]

582 dangerous criminals sent to prison for life–Tom Miller. [Words “582 in prison for life–Tom Miller Attorney General” on screen]

84 sex predators and rapists kept in prison beyond their original terms. [words “84 predators and rapists kept in prison” on screen]

And he continues to lead the fight in the legislature for tougher laws on sex predators–Tom Miller. [photo of Miller, words “tougher laws on sex predators, Tom Miller Attorney General” on screen]

A mortgage hotline helping twelve thousand Iowans struggling to keep their homes. [words “12,000 home owners helped” on screen]

Cracking down on crime, standing up for Iowans. Tom Miller: A tough crime-fighter, a proven attorney general.

They certainly mentioned his name a lot of times, which is important for an incumbent who’s not in the news every day. I would like Miller to emphasize his consumer protection work, but I’m not surprised he went with the “tough on crime” angle. Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley is running tv and radio ads emphasizing her commitment to locking up sex predators (which implies the incumbent is not doing that job).

Miller has lobbied the state legislature for tougher laws on sex predators, so his commercial is accurate. I think it’s worth noting that while the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws keeping sex offenders in custody beyond their terms, the programs “have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.”

The mortgage help hotline is important, and Miller should talk more about that kind of work before the election.

Speaking of foreclosures, the Attorney General’s Office announced today that Miller “is leading a 49-state bipartisan mortgage foreclosure working group, as part of a coordinated national effort by states to review the practice of so-called ‘robo-signing’ within the mortgage servicing industry.” The Wisconsin-based Daily Reporter has more on that effort. I’ve posted the press release from the AG’s office after the jump.

UPDATE: The Iowa Student Bar Association of the University of Iowa College of Law is sponsoring a debate between Findley and Miller, now scheduled for October 20 at the law school in Iowa City. Law students will submit the questions in advance.

President Barack Obama supposedly wants to end the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the U.S. military. His administration has backed a legislative compromise that would probably lead to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell next year. However, the votes aren’t there in the Senate to attach that provision to this year’s defense authorization act. The Senate will consider the bill again after the November election, but I doubt senators would vote to lift the ban on gays in the military during a lame-duck session. Next year the issue will be off the table in a House and Senate with many more Republican votes, and possibly Republican majorities.

Yesterday a U.S. District Court judge in California gave Obama an easy way to keep his promise on ending the ban:  

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ permanent worldwide injunction — praised by gay rights organizations — orders the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. […]

In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. “Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers’ rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights,” the judge wrote.

Now the question is whether Obama will have his administration appeal this ruling:

President Barack Obama has backed a Democratic effort in Congress to repeal the law, rather than in an executive order or in court.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction leaves the administration with a choice: Continue defending a law it opposes with an appeal, or do nothing, let the policy be overturned, and add an explosive issue to a midterm election with Republicans poised to make major gains.[…]

If the government does not appeal, the injunction cannot be reversed and would remain in effect. If it does, it can seek a temporary freeze, or stay, of her ruling. An appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Either side could then take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment, and a Justice Department spokeswoman said the government was reviewing the decision. Meanwhile, a group of 19 Democrat senators signed a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to let the injunction stand.

As of yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin was not among the Democrats who co-signed that letter. I am seeking comment from his office on whether he supports a Justice Department appeal of Judge Phillips’ ruling.

Since the last time Bleeding Heartland caught up on the third Congressional district race, seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell’s chances for re-election have improved. Long considered Iowa’s most vulnerable Democrat in Congress, Boswell may now be in a stronger position than he has been all year.

New commercials, a new poll, and more are after the jump.  

For months, Republicans lied about Iowa supposedly running a billion-dollar budget deficit. Then they claimed that while Democrats might have balanced the current-year budget, they had pushed the state to the edge of a “cliff” for the following fiscal year. Another billion-dollar shortfall loomed, we were told, because Democrats relied too much on “one-time” federal funding and rejected the GOP’s proposed spending cuts. (By the way, those wouldn’t have saved the state as much money as Republicans claimed).

Yesterday Iowa’s Revenue Estimating Conference increased revenue projections for fiscal year 2011 by just under $298 million, citing improvements in the economy.

The REC additionally made its first projection for the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2011.  The estimate for that year is almost $5.946 billion. […]

The Legislative Services Agency has previously estimated that Iowa faced a budget gap of between $800 million and $1 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2011.

Gaps are not deficits. Instead they are projections. And projections of hundreds of millions of dollars are common prior to the beginning of any budget year due to how the state budget is put together.  State lawmakers gather to whittle the state’s budget requests to fit the expected revenue.

Holly Lyons, director of the Legislative Services Agency’s Division of Fiscal Services and an REC member said today’s number would likely mean that the 2012 gap will be roughly $300 million smaller.

Contrary to Republican rhetoric, Democrats were wise not to deeply slash state services during the recession. The 2009 stimulus and other forms of federal fiscal aid did the job of helping Iowa get through a period of declining revenues without making huge cuts in education, Medicaid and other programs. Not using those federal dollars to support the state budget would have imposed unnecessary hardship on Iowans. In addition, deeper public-sector cuts would have further weakened the national economy. The latest U.S. jobs report demonstrated the impact of cutbacks in state and local budgets.

Iowa Republicans should apologize for their drumbeat on “overspending,” but don’t expect anything to change during the last three weeks of the campaign.

Final note: the swings in state revenue projections show that Terry Branstad’s plan to move Iowa to biennial budgeting would be foolish. It’s hard enough to predict revenues 12 months into the future, let alone 24 months out. That’s why many states have abandoned biennial budgeting in recent decades. Branstad hasn’t talked much about this issue since the Republican primary campaign, but he was on record then insisting that Iowa should move away from annual budgets.

Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin both launched new television commercials today, their first in a couple of weeks.

Videos and transcripts are after the jump.

State Auditor David Vaudt has been a heck of a surrogate for Iowa Republicans. Dozens of candidates have adopted his rhetoric about Iowa being on the edge of a budget “cliff.” His false assertions have been featured in television commercials for Terry Branstad, and he joined the GOP nominee for governor on a so-called “truth in budgeting” tour this summer.

There are a few problems with Vaudt’s analysis. Iowa is running a larger than expected surplus, not a deficit. Independent analysts have confirmed our state finances weathered the recession well. Those analysts include all three major bond rating agencies, which have given Iowa the highest possible credit rating.

As the Des Moines Register reports today, however, Vaudt’s management decisions may bring down that credit rating despite Iowa’s relatively strong fiscal position.

An outside observer watching the Iowa House and Senate races would have trouble telling the Republican candidates apart. No matter which district you live in, the Republican candidate is using the same talking points in media interviews, campaign ads, or direct mail. They point to deficits that don’t exist, heated sidewalks that don’t exist, and so-called reckless borrowing that hasn’t created any jobs (a big distortion of the I-JOBS program). Republicans blast supposedly out-of-control spending, even though growth in expenditures on business tax credits “far exceeds general fund spending growth” in Iowa. They claim the local Democrat has “forced” large property tax increases, even though economists have debunked that claim, as “dozens of factors” affect property tax rates. Those include local bond issues and changes related to Iowa’s “rollback” calculation.

Sandy Greiner, GOP candidate in Iowa Senate district 45, sounds indistinguishable from other Republicans. At her campaign website and in her her radio advertising, she claims state government is “spending too much.” Like many other GOP candidates, she asserts (wrongly), “The last four budgets passed by the legislature have been the largest in the state’s history.” Greiner herself voted for the fiscal year 2007 budget, the last one approved by a Republican-controlled legislature in Iowa. That budget provided for greater general fund spending than the current-year budget.

Greiner is unique among Republican candidates in one respect, however. No one else leads a group that’s raising and spending more in undisclosed political donations than all candidates will spend in all of Iowa’s 125 legislative races combined.  

Between visiting Iowa City yesterday and the Wills Family Orchard/pumpkin patch today, I forgot to put up a weekend open thread.

Share anything on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers. Reports of political robocalls, direct mail, radio or television ads are always welcome. The candidates and volunteers must have enjoyed the perfect weather for knocking on doors.

From time to time I enjoy pondering counterfactual history questions like “Should the Republicans have nominated Romney in 2008?” or “Could Clinton or Edwards have beaten Obama in Iowa?”

Since establishment Republicans suffered shocking losses last month in the Delaware and Alaska U.S. Senate primaries, another question has been on my mind. Could a primary challenger have taken out or seriously threatened Senator Chuck Grassley in Iowa?

Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad face off in a few minutes at Cedar Rapids’ Coe College. KCRG and the Cedar Rapids Gazette are live-streaming the debate. From 8 to 9 pm people anywhere in Iowa can watch the debate on Iowa Public Television.

Unlike last time around, I won’t shirk my blogger duties. Live-blogging commences after the jump.

UPDATE: For the most part I agree with Todd Dorman; no surprises in the debate. I think whoever prepped Branstad for the debate was wise to have him waive rebuttals when the question didn’t play to a good issue for him.

In reference to the debate sparring over property taxes (see below) Culver’s campaign sent out a list of bills Branstad signed that authorized new or expanded property taxes.

Governor Chet Culver and Republican challenger Terry Branstad will debate for the second time tonight at 7 pm. You can watch live online at KCRG in Cedar Rapids, or statewide on Iowa Public Television at 8 pm. I’ll put up a debate discussion thread here later, but first let’s preview each candidate’s message on the big issues likely to come up tonight. As was apparent during the first gubernatorial debate, these two are masters at answering the question they want to answer.

Jobs, flood recovery, tv ads and more are after the jump.

Republicans didn’t recruit a high-profile challenger against two-term Representative Bruce Braley, who outperformed Barack Obama in Iowa’s first Congressional district in 2008. For months, Ben Lange’s campaign in this D+5 district attracted little attention as Iowa Republicans talked up their chances against Leonard Boswell in the third district.

Four weeks before the election, Lange is definitely on the radar. Yesterday the National Republican Congressional Committee bumped him up to the top tier of its “Young Guns” program. The NRCC hasn’t reserved any paid media in Iowa so far and isn’t likely to spend on behalf of Lange. But he doesn’t need their help–not with the 501(c)4 group American Future Fund reserving $800,000 in air time to attack Braley on top of direct mail and robocalls criticizing the incumbent.

A survey of recent news and advertising in the IA-01 race is after the jump.

Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley has been one of the hardest-working challengers in Iowa this year. For months, she’s been campaigning across the state, and she’s raised lots of money, helped by her close ties to Representative Steve King and an enthusiastic booster in Terry Branstad. Findley launched her introductory television commercial this week and has had a radio ad running since mid-September. In contrast, 28-year Democratic incumbent Tom Miller has been mostly invisible on the campaign trail.

Findley’s introductory tv and radio ads are after the jump, along with some other recent news from the attorney general’s race.  

Direct mail attacking Democratic incumbents has reached voters in many competitive Iowa House and Senate districts. From reports I’ve heard, most mailers employ cookie-cutter messaging about unsustainable spending, or supposedly “forced” property tax increases, which have been debunked again and again.

One GOP talking point had me stumped: in press conferences, message-testing phone calls and campaign mailers, Republicans have accused Democrats of spending thousands of dollars on “heated sidewalks.”

Follow me after the jump for background on the origin of this canard. You’ll be “shocked” to learn that Iowa House and Senate Democrats did not vote to spend money on heating sidewalks, nor are such sidewalks planned or installed anywhere in Iowa.  

Matt Schultz, the not-very-informed Republican who wants to be Iowa’s chief elections officer, has been on a tear lately. Last week he launched the Stop Mauro website, which publishes new allegations almost daily about Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s supposedly nefarious doings. A common thread in Schultz’s rhetoric, dating from the Republican primary campaign, is that Mauro engages in Chicago-style politics, which have no place in Iowa.

On October 1 Schultz slammed Mauro for filming public-service announcements regarding new voting technology for the visually impaired. Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson covered Schultz’s joint press conference with Republican state treasurer candidate Dave Jamison. Mauro’s office responded as well. There is an obvious public interest in educating Iowans about new voting equipment during election season. Mauro appears in the commercial, but so do a Republican county auditor and the president of the Iowa Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind. More details on the production, funding and script of the ad are here.

Schultz’s attention-getting press conference seems to have backfired. On Monday two more Republican county auditors joined the crowd supporting Mauro for re-election. One of the new endorsers was Marilyn Jo Drake of Pottawattamie County. Schultz is well-known there, having served on the Council Bluffs City Council since 2005. But Drake said in a statement, “I’m proud to support Michael Mauro as he seeks a second term as Secretary of State. Michael Mauro has been a strong and effective partner with county auditors across Iowa. I encourage all Iowans to vote for him this fall.”

Elected county officials rarely back statewide candidates from the other party. Schultz doesn’t have the experience to do this job, and his unfounded claims don’t inspire confidence from the county auditors who work with the Secretary of State’s office.

Jamison’s complaints about State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald are no more convincing. Jamison claims “taxpayers” are funding television, radio and newspaper ads featuring Fitzgerald. The ads publicize the College Savings Iowa 529 plan and the “Great Iowa Treasure Hunt,” which encourages Iowans to retrieve unclaimed property from the state. Deputy State Treasurer Karen Austin told me that unclaimed property finances the publicity for the treasure hunt, which state law requires twice a year. Those ads typically appear in May and September. The state’s general fund budget doesn’t pay for the college savings fund commercials either; those are funded by the 529 plan’s assets. Austin told Kay Henderson that many states including Iowa normally promote college savings in September. Jamison accused Fitzgerald of using public funds to promote himself, but

Austin says, “The way that we look at it, is having a state office that does this adds credibility to the program, and that is one thing that gives people comfort in understanding and knowing who is promoting this program, and why should I invest in this program and is that state tax benefit legitimate. So we have always felt that it is very important to make sure that people understand what this program is.”

Similarly, Schultz claimed the commercials on voting technology could have been produced without featuring Mauro. Guess what? Incumbents have some natural advantages in politics–like when Republican office-holders use taxpayer money to fund visits to all 99 Iowa counties every year.

Share any thoughts about the secretary of state or state treasurer races in this thread.

P.S. One point on the Stop Mauro site deserves additional comment. Schultz says Mauro “snubs the law,” citing a 2008 Polk County district court ruling. The court determined that Mauro violated Iowa’s official English law by providing and accepting voter registration forms printed in other languages. Legal scholars Evan Seite and Michael Zuckerman have analyzed this case in detail, and the issues at hand are more complicated than Schultz implies. In fact, the judge who wrote the King v Mauro opinion “suggested that the federal Voting Rights Act […] might require Iowa’s use of non-English voter registration forms” under an exception allowing for “language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” If plaintiffs ever challenge the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act in federal court, Mauro’s actions may be vindicated. Zuckerman argues that English-only laws are constitutionally vulnerable as applied to voting.  

At about 6:20 pm today I received a robocall informing me about one of the “most important” elections this year, which is “buried at the bottom of your ballot.” The recorded female voice told me that voting no on the three Iowa Supreme Court judges would send a “clear message,” since the judges had ignored the “overwhelming” will of the people, blah blah blah. Toward the end the caller again urged me to vote no on retention, adding a populist closing line: “This time, you get to be the judge.”

I was taking notes as fast as I could, ready to write down who paid for the call and the phone number of the sponsor. However, the call ended without giving any of that information. Using *69, I learned that the source of my last incoming call was 515-418-9339, but when I pressed 1 to contact that number, I heard, “The number called cannot be reached.” Subsequent attempts to dial 515-418-9339 didn’t produce a ring, busy signal or any answering machine message.

In federal elections, groups making automated calls must “identify themselves at the beginning of the call and provide a call-back number.” Although most robocalls I’ve received do provide that information, Iowa statute does not require it, to my knowledge.

I wonder why those campaigning against the Iowa Supreme Court judges are reluctant to publicize who is bankrolling their campaign activities. Shouldn’t the sponsor be “loud and proud” about what they’re doing? Perhaps they don’t want to call attention to the vast amounts of out-of-state money trying to influence the retention vote. The Washington, DC-based National Organization for Marriage and the Mississippi-based American Family Association Action are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars urging Iowans to vote no on retention.

Please share any relevant thoughts, and post a comment or contact me off-line if you’ve received the same robocall.

Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally approved the new “antidegradation” rules adopted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to protect high quality Iowa waters. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and two industry groups immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state Environmental Protection Commission’s vote to adopt the antidegradation rules. The EPC and the DNR are named as defendants.

A Farm Bureau press release charged that two members of the EPC should not have been able to vote on the rule. Carrie LaSeur, president of the non-profit organization Plains Justice, “was already living and voting in Montana when she cast her vote on the Iowa antidegradation rule,” the lawsuit contends. “That is a clear violation of the residency laws governing the EPC, which require members to be registered Iowa voters.” The lawsuit further claims EPC member Susan Heathcote had a conflict of interest because she works for the Iowa Environmental Council, a non-profit that advocated adoption of antidegradation standards. Environmental attorney James Pray posted a link to the petition on his blog and summarized a third angle to the lawsuit:

The third count alleges that Iowa’s antidegradation rules are more restrictive than the federal law. Iowa Code section 455B.105(3) requires the EPC to state in the Notice of Intended Action or preamble that a rule will be more restrictive than what is required under federal law. The Iowa antidegradation rule invents a Tier 2 1/2 designation in between the federal Tier 2 and Tier 3 designation. No mention was made in the preamble or Notice of Intended Action that this change was in the offing.

The Iowa Farm Bureau has 154,000 members. The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, and the Iowa Water Environment Association are industry groups with 100 and 600 members, respectively. All three groups have some members who will be required to obtain or renew NPDES permits that comply with antidegredation requirements.

The EPC has nine commissioners and needs at least five yes votes to adopt a rule. The antidegradation rule passed on December 15, 2009 by a vote of six to two with one abstention (pdf). In other words, it would have passed without LaSeur voting, or without Heathcote, but not without both of them.

I am not an attorney and don’t know Iowa case law relating to residency and LaSeur’s eligilibity to serve on a state commission.

Heathcote declined my request for comment today, not having had a chance to read the legal petition. She had served on the EPC for more than two years before the antidegradation rule passed, but this is the first lawsuit challenging her ability to vote on commission matters related to environmental regulation.

The EPA noted yesterday that the federal Clean Water Act requires Iowa “to develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and to identify procedures for implementing the policy.” I thought Iowa’s many years of non-compliance were over once opponents failed to stop the water quality rules in the Iowa legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee in February. The Farm Bureau’s lawsuit means at least a delay and perhaps the demise of rules designed to “maintain and protect high quality waters and existing water quality in other waters from unnecessary pollution.”  

Another independent analysis concludes Iowa is well-managed and compares favorably to most other states. 24/7 Wall St, a website geared toward investors, released its survey of “The Best and Worst Run States in America on Monday. Iowa ranked third, behind Wyoming and North Dakota. This survey took many indicators into account:

It is based on evaluation principles used in the award-winning Best Run States In America ratings published by the Financial World Magazine during the 1990s. These studies were used by state governments to evaluate the efficiency of their own operations. The new 24/7 Wall St. study is meant to help businesses and individuals examine state operation with an unbiased eye.

The word involved in comparing states is challenging. This is due the volume of the data and the many ways it can be interpreted. A comparison is made even more difficult because state governments have advantages and disadvantages that may be decades old. These include the presence of natural resources, the the decisions by large companies to locate or leave and the extent to which populations are rural or urban. […]

Ultimately, however, states can control their own destinies. Well-run states have a great deal in common with well-run corporations. Books are kept balanced. Investment is prudent. Debt is sustainable. Innovation is prized. Workers are well-chosen and well-trained. Executives are picked based on merit and not “politics.”

24/7 Wall Street identified surveys with complete data sets for each state. Using this data, our formula ranked each state giving weight to metrics that are most important to prudent governance. In addition to traditional fiscal information, including GDP per capita, debt per capita, and and credit rating, our analysis also showed the impact of state policies on its residents.

24/7 Wall St posted more information about its methodology near the bottom of this page. Governor Chet Culver and the Democratic-controlled state legislature can’t take credit for all of the factors that helped Iowa gain such a high ranking. However, this survey demonstrates the emptiness of Republican campaign rhetoric about “out of control” state spending and borrowing. Iowa has maintained a top credit rating and the sixth-lowest debt per capita, and our unemployment rate is relatively low by national standards.

Since Democrats gained Iowa House and Senate majorities four years ago, they have passed bills to expand access to health care for children and adults (see here and here for two examples). Those laws helped reduce Iowa’s already low percentage of residents without health insurance. Only Massachusetts and Hawaii now score better than Iowa on this metric, according to a chart near the middle of this page in the 24/7 Wall St report.

Yet again, outside analysts who don’t have a dog in the outcome of Iowa elections have concluded that the state is doing well, thanks to capable and prudent management. Don’t expect Republicans to notice, though.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is headlining a sold-out fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad in Des Moines this evening. Branstad has praised Christie for “cleaning up the state’s budget and again putting his state on the right track.” One Republican speaker after another tonight will bash Iowa Governor Chet Culver, ignoring the fact that our state ended the last fiscal year with a sizable surplus and has been described as one of the states “least like California” in terms of budget problems.

Bleeding Heartland would like to welcome Christie to Iowa by comparing his record on state borrowing with Culver’s I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program, a frequent Republican punching bag.

The latest Des Moines Register poll by Selzer and Co finds three Iowa Supreme Court justices are in danger of not being retained this November. The Register’s Monday edition contains details from that portion of the poll, which surveyed 550 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent.

Among all likely voters, just 31 percent plan to vote to retain all three Supreme Court justices, 12 percent will vote to retain some of them, 29 percent will vote against retaining all of them, 16 percent will probably not fill out that part of the ballot, and 12 percent were unsure. Among respondents who planned to vote on the retentions, 44 percent said they would vote to retain all the Supreme Court judges, 16 percent said they would vote to retain some, and 40 percent will vote to remove all three.

Click here for the Register’s graph showing the breakdown among certain demographic groups (party affiliation, income, union household and born again Christian). Grant Schulte summarized the findings:

Retention supporters and opponents split largely on party lines. Voters most likely to retain all the justices were Democrats, women, younger Iowans, union households, and those with high incomes and college degrees.

Senior citizens, Republicans, men, tea party supporters, born-again Christians, low-income voters and those with only a high school education were more likely to vote “no” to all the justices, the poll found.

I had feared worse numbers, since the Register’s poll was in the field September 19-22, not long after television commercials making the case against retention started running statewide.

Schulte’s article notes,

The retention election could hinge on which side mobilizes the most down-ticket voters. A Register analysis of voting records in the past two non-presidential elections shows that only 60 percent of Iowa voters answered the retention questions for justices and appeals-court judges.

The judges don’t plan to campaign for themselves. Groups backing retention won’t be able to match the advertising budgets of groups on the religious right. I doubt they will reach as many voters as the pastors who plan to preach directly against retaining the judges either.

Ousting three Supreme Court wouldn’t change Iowa’s judicial system right away, but it would give momentum to those who want to replace merit-based selection with a more politicized process. Please remind your friends to fill out the whole ballot and vote yes on the judges up for retention.