In an ideal world, evidence that more than half of Midwest rivers and streams can’t support aquatic life would inspire policy-makers to clean up our waterways. Rivers that are suitable for swimming, fishing, and other recreation can be a huge economic engine for Iowa communities.

We live in Iowa, where most of our lawmakers take the Patty Judge view: “Iowa is an agricultural state and anyone who doesn’t like it can leave in any of four directions.”

Yesterday the Iowa House approved a bill to relax manure storage regulations for large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). All of the House Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats supported this bad legislation. Details on the bill and the House vote are below.

During 2011 and 2012, the Iowa Senate was our state’s firewall against the social conservative agenda. The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on abortion rights (twice), a “stand your ground” bill and a constitutional amendment that would invalidate virtually all restrictions on guns. All of those bills died in the Democratic-controlled state Senate.

Social issues have never been a priority for Iowa House leaders. They blocked a floor vote on a “personhood” bill in 2011 and steered clear of extremist crusades like impeaching Iowa Supreme Court justices and replacing gun permit laws with “constitutional carry.” Still, I expected House Republicans to cover the usual bases during this year’s legislative session.

Instead, almost every high-profile bill on so-called family values failed to win House committee approval and therefore died in the legislature’s first funnel deadline last Friday. That includes some mainstream conservative efforts as well as freak show bills like ending no-fault divorce or barring county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Most amazing to me, House Republicans no longer have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  

The Iowa House will begin its 2013 session next Monday with 53 Republicans, 46 Democrats and one seat to be filled in a special election on January 22.

After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa House majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing House committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since last year’s legislative session.

Some non-political Iowa House trivia: three state representatives have the surname Olson (not counting Democrat Jo Oldson). There are two Millers, two Taylors, and two Smiths, one from each party in every case. David is most common first name: the new cohort contains three Daves and two Davids. Four state representatives have the first name Mark, four are called Daniel (three go by Dan) and four were given the name Robert (two Robs, one Bob, and a Bobby). Four women are named Mary (one goes by Mary Ann), and two are named Linda. There are two men each named Greg, Chuck, John, Kevin, Pat, Bruce, Tom, and Chris, and there would have been two Brians if Brian Quirk had not resigned shortly after winning re-election. Oddly, no current Iowa House member is named Mike or Michael.

JANUARY 28 UPDATE: Democrat Todd Prichard won the special election in House district 52, bringing the number of Todds in the Iowa House to two. I’ve added his committee assignments below. Republicans maintain a 53-47 majority.

Losing a re-election contest is no fun for any state legislator, but defeated incumbents often land on their feet. Such is the case with outgoing State Senator Merlin Bartz and State Representative Annette Sweeney.

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has announced who will lead all the standing and appropriations committees for the 2013 legislative session. Below I’ve posted the full list of Republican House leaders and committee chairs. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since last year.

Opposing all government funding for abortion is settled dogma among Iowa Republican activists and elected officials. For two years in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked attempts to write new restrictions on Medicaid abortion coverage into the budget for the state Department of Human Services. Now DHS Director Chuck Palmer has signaled that taking control of the upper chamber may not give Republicans the power to restrict the choices of low-income women.

Palmer’s action puts Governor Terry Branstad in an awkward position, and a legislature completely under GOP control could create a political nightmare for Branstad, a proud “pro-lifer” throughout his career.

Polls closed across Iowa at 9 pm, and I will update this post periodically as results come in from around the states. Any comments related to today’s elections are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- As expected, Wisconsin Democrats fell short in their effort to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker.

UPDATE: Results are after the jump.  

Polls are now open in Iowa’s primary elections across the state and will close at 9 pm.

Any comments about Iowa races for Congress, state legislative, or county offices are welcome in this thread. I’ve posted lots of links after the jump to get the conversation going. I also extended the deadline for entering the primary election prediction contest.

Iowa primary elections are coming up next Tuesday, so it’s time for another Bleeding Heartland election prediction contest. A dozen questions are after the jump. There are so many competitive Iowa House and Senate primaries that it was difficult for me to choose. I tried to achieve some geographical balance and cover different types of primaries (open-seat races vs. challenges to incumbents, safe seats for one party vs. swing districts).

To enter the contest, post your predictions as comments in this thread before 7 am 6 pm on June 5. Predictions submitted by e-mail will not be considered. It’s ok to change your mind, as long as you post your revised predictions as an additional comment in this thread before the deadline.

No money’s at stake here, just bragging rights. This isn’t like “The Price is Right”; the winning answers will be closest to the final results, whether or not they were a little high or low. Even if you have no idea, please try to take a guess on every question.

What’s going on with Brad Zaun? This month he’s stuck his nose into two Republican primaries that should be of little concern to a state senator from the Des Moines suburbs.

I’m posting the weekend thread early, because the filing period for primary election candidates in Iowa closed this afternoon. The Secretary of State’s Office posted the full list of candidates here (pdf). John Deeth has been covering the filing on a daily basis all month at his blog. Some highlights from races I’m watching are after the jump.

This is an open thread; all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Gotta agree with Senator Chuck Grassley: the History Channel is useless.

As Iowa’s top state officials welcomed Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping yesterday, activists gathered in Muscatine and Des Moines to protest China’s policy of repression in Tibet. Governor Terry Branstad praised Xi and his country, gushing about the potential to expand trade and friendship between Iowa and China.

Iowa’s “pro-life” movement was nowhere to be seen and had nothing to say about Xi’s visit.

Although the 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats in the Iowa House haven’t changed since last year, I thought it was worth updating this post, because some committee assignments have changed, and House Democrats reshuffled their ranking members somewhat.

Majority and minority leadership teams are after the jump, along with all members of standing House committees. All 100 House districts are on the ballot every two years, so I’ve noted the new district numbers for state representatives seeking re-election in 2012, as well as which House members have said they will retire after this year’s legislative session.

The state agency Iowa Workforce Development has replaced 36 field offices with hundreds of new “enhanced access” computer terminals this year.

Although the shuttered offices are unlikely ever to reopen, they may live on as talking points in many competitive Iowa House and Senate races next fall.

Senator Chuck Grassley got the word out yesterday: he won’t endorse any Republican presidential candidate before the Iowa caucuses.

Former State Senator Bill Heckroth announced today that he will run as a Democrat in Iowa House district 63 next year. Heckroth owns a financial planning business in Waverly, the largest town in the district. To my knowledge, Heckroth does not have a campaign website up yet. I’ve posted the Iowa House Democrats’ press release after the jump, along with a district map.

The new district 63 includes all of Bremer County and parts of northern Black Hawk County, outside the Waterloo and Cedar Falls city limits. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the district, but independents have a plurality. As of April 2011, the district contained 5,225 registered Democrats, 6,395 registered Republicans and 9,128 no-party voters.

Aside from a few Black Hawk County precincts, the entire territory in the new House district 63 was part of the old Iowa Senate district 9, which Heckroth represented from 2007 through 2010. Here’s a map of that district. Over the past two decades, Heckroth has been involved with a wide variety of community organizations in Waverly; his press release lists them below. In his successful 2006 race, Heckroth outpolled Republican Tom Hoogestraat in both the Bremer and Black Hawk portions of the district. Heckroth lost his 2010 re-election bid to Bill Dix, who also had a strong base in Waverly, but even then Heckroth outperformed Governor Chet Culver in Bremer.

No current state representative lives in the new district 63. As far as I know, no Republican has announced plans to run in this district. Three-term House member Pat Grassley represents part of Bremer County; he could move to this district as a way to resolve being paired with fellow Republican Annette Sweeney in the new House district 50. However, that scenario seems unlikely. House district 50 has a much larger GOP voter registration advantage than district 63. Also, Sweeney voted against the redistricting plan while Grassley voted for it, suggesting that he will be able to stay put.

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats’ speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state’s interest in promoting childbearing:

“We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation.”

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar “slippery slope” concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one’s tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren’t eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland “answered” Willems’ question, but in a non-responsive way.  

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they’re doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as “government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.” Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today’s debate. Many must realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A “loud and proud” statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today’s Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been “wrong” to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they’d had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.

When the 84th General Assembly convenes on January 10, the Iowa House will have 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. House Republicans selected leaders and committee chairs last month, and Democrats finished choosing leaders and ranking committee members in the past two weeks.

All Iowa House leaders, committee chairs and ranking members can be found after the jump. I’ve included a link to a short biography for each state representative, as well as the year the person was first elected to the Iowa House and the district he or she represents.  

The newly elected Iowa House Republican caucus picked a leadership team last week, and incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen named committee chairs this week.

Follow me after the jump for information about who will run various House committees in the 84th General Assembly. It’s notable that Paulsen passed over veteran legislators while giving chairmanships to some representatives beginning their second or third terms.

LATE UPDATE: Democratic ranking members for the appropriations subcommittees have been added at the bottom of this post.

Iowa Republicans have been throwing around misleading talking points about the I-JOBS program since the Iowa legislature approved the infrastructure bonding initiative last spring. I’m still waiting for Republicans to address some basic questions, like where would they have found $45 million for flood recovery efforts in Linn County without I-JOBS? What was their plan for repairing ten flood-damaged structures at the University of Iowa, if they didn’t want to issue $100 million in state bonds to leverage $500 million in federal funds to rebuild the campus?

Some Republicans have called for delaying infrastructure projects until we have enough cash to pay for them up front, but Iowa’s worst-ever flooding hit the state during the most severe national recession since World War II. There was no realistic way to pay for flood recovery efforts without state borrowing. Even David Yepsen, a notorious skeptic about state spending, could see that. During the summer of 2008, Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson pointed out, “When you borrow money, that allows you to fix things as quickly as possible,” he said. “You can’t move as quickly on a ‘pay-as-you go’ basis.” Yet every Republican in the legislature voted against borrowing money to repair the damage from the devastating 2008 floods.

In addition to the flood recovery funds allocated to Linn County and the University of Iowa, the I-JOBS program included $118.5 million for “reconstruction of local public buildings and flood control prevention,” to be awarded by competitive grants. It wasn’t enough to fully meet local infrastructure needs across the state; requests for that portion of the I-JOBS money totaled $333.6 million. But it was a good start.

Republicans recently seized on a new talking point: some I-JOBS money is supposedly being spent on projects unrelated to disaster recovery. By way of example, State Representative Pat Grassley mentioned the community center in the Des Moines suburb of Windsor Heights. I contacted Windsor Heights City Manager Marketa George Oliver about this allegation, and she forwarded a copy of a letter from Mayor Jerry Sullivan to Grassley. You can view the whole letter here, but the small print is hard to read, so here’s the relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):

The City is currently constructing a new Community Center. The structure that used to be in [Colby Park] at this location was originally built in a flood plain and was repeatedly flooded. It sustained flood damage year after year and flood after flood. The new structure is being built out of the flood plain and protected from any future flooding, mitigating the effects of a natural disaster. The Center, once finished, will be a heating/cooling facility in the event of prolonged power outages, which is much-needed in our region. In the event of natural disasters, it will also be available as temporary housing. […]

The I-Jobs program gave us the ability to make a substantial investment in mitigating and responding to natural disasters. The program was also able to support our efforts in a timely manner, unlike many other grants programs.

Oliver explained to me that a heating/cooling center is a place residents without power can go during a cold spell or dangerous heat wave.

Republicans will continue to attack the I-JOBS program during this year’s campaigns for governor and state legislature. Democrats need to be ready to defend these infrastructure investments, because journalists will sometimes pass along ill-informed claims like Grassley’s without providing context or an opposing view. In addition, some Republican candidates may falsely suggest that I-JOBS pays for ongoing spending programs instead of capital projects, like bridge and sewer repairs. Maybe they are thinking of Republican Terry Branstad, who borrowed money to solve the state’s cash flow problems in 1992.

I wanted to draw your attention to a little known house race that I believe has massive implications for the future of our state. 

According to this Iowa Independent article, 23 year old Hillary staffer and newly minted Wartburg graduate Cayla Baresel is running for Iowa House District 17, currently held by Sen. Grassley's grandson, Pat Grassley (more on him later).

I don't wish to plagarize from the Iowa Independent article, but it represents virtually the only press her campaign has gotten to date, and so I will quote just a few paragraphs. I strongly encourage everyone to read the full article.

Having grown up in a single-parent household in Iowa, Baresel says the issues she feels most deeply about are education and health care. Those are followed closely by concerns for the economy and a need for more biofuels technology and environmental issues.

“It was a challenge for my mother, but she did an excellent job [raising my sister and me] and working two jobs most of the time,” Baresel said. “Higher education can sometimes feel as if it is out of reach. It's expensive now and it gets more and more expensive every year. I also know there are people in this district who can't afford health care premiums so they do without insurance. We've got to create more opportunities. We've got to give young Iowans a reason to remain in our state. Those are big concerns not only for the individuals in those situations, but for the district as a whole.”

When the election is said and done, Baresel says she wants the voices and needs of the people to be the driving force in Des Moines.

“I've had the opportunity to hear the stories of the people in Butler and Bremer counties. I've heard what's important to them,” she said. “I know I would represent them and this area well. I know I would be a good representative because I would always represent the people.”

Can the same be said about her opponent, political legacy Pat Grassley?

Pat Grassley was elected to House District 17 in 2006 at the age of 23 (his grandfather was elected to the same district at the age of 24), having inherited longtime Republican Bill Dix's seat in an uncontested primary–the first of many benefits of the Grassley name. 

According to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, in the 2006 election cycle (2005/2006), Pat Grassley raised and spent over $100,000–an unheard of sum for a non-leadership, rural, first-time candidate in a Republican leaning district. His opponent, 22 year old Alek Wipperman, raised and spent less than $15,000…meaning he was out spent more than five to one.

More disconcerting still, are the source of some of those contributions. According to the IEC and this article by the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, Grassley recieved thousands of dollars of big name, politically connected PAC contributions including:

• $5000 from Sen. Mitch McConnell's Bluegrass Committee PAC
• $2000 from Fmr. Sen. Bill Frist's VOLPAC
• $2000 from Sen. Chuck Hagel's Sandhills PAC
• $1500 from Sen. Lindsay Graham's Fund for Americas' Future PAC
• $1000 from Sen. Max Baucus' Glacier PAC
• $1000 from Fmr. NY Gov. George Pataki's 21st Century Freedom PAC
• $1000 from the Republican Issues Campaign (RICPAC)

By the end of 2005, Grassley had racked up more than $13,000…meaning that Grassley raised and spent more money from PAC's alone than our challenger raised and spent total.

If that doesn't chill the blood, listen to this quote from Grassley himself in the fore mentioned article from the W-CF Courier.

“My grandpa and I talked, and I said I'd take any money that was legal and with no strings attached,” Pat says. “If people didn't feel confident in me, they wouldn't just sign a check over to me and be linked to me.”

In short, Grassley is the pinnacle of the new generation of big-money Washington conservatives in Iowa, and we need to put up a strong campaign against him now, or face the consequences in the future. We need to send a message that, in Iowa, people rise on their merits–not their political connections.

Don't be fooled: somewhere in the halls of power, a political path is being charted for the younger Grassley. There's no telling where that path lies, but be certain that it runs through the House, Senate or Terrace Hill. As the old doctor's adage goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, and every ounce of effort put into defeating Pat Grassley now will pay off in spades later.

I urge everyone to look into Ms. Baresel once she gets her campaign up and running, and seriously consider contributing. This is one race we can't afford to write off.

I thought with this year winding down, I'd make some predictions for the year ahead before the caucus craziness got any more out-of-hand. These are just my gut feeling on things, so don't take it too seriously.

1. The Iowa Caucus will show less than 5% difference between the top three Democrat candidates.   

    Everything I know tells me that this is going to be an incredibly close race. For one, I think John Edwards is being under-represented in the polls, due to his strength in the rural counties. Therefore, the caucus can go to any of the top three at this point. I predict the top three candidates will garner between 75-80% of the total, with no more than 5% difference between first and third. 

2. Mike Huckabee will decisively win the Iowa Caucus   

    Everything suggests that nothing can stop the Huck truck at this point. All these past, uh, we'll call them “opinions”, haven't stuck to him in a way that will turn off significant numbers of Iowa caucusgoers. He'll win, and win big.

3. Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate.

    Ron Paul will have a strong showing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide. Not strong enough to win any individual state, let alone the nomination, but it will show that there is a big support base for him. I can't say whether he'll sign on with an established third party or start his own, but he will definitely continue the race.

4. Democrats will have solid gains in the House and Senate.

    This one's a gimme. I'm going to say we pick up 4 in the Senate and 6 in the House. Not an Earth-shaking realignment, but solid gains nonetheless.

5. Mike Bloomberg will not run for President.

    Through some backroom dealings, Mike Bloomberg will find himself dissuaded of any notion to run for President in 2008. As a result of this, I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up in some shape or form down the line in the form of a cabinet nomination or ambassadorship, no matter which party wins.