The Iowa House and Senate convened for the 2017 legislative session yesterday. If all goes according to schedule under Republican control of both chambers for the first time since 2004, lawmakers will complete their work by late April or early May.

Listening to the platitudes in opening day speeches by GOP leaders, you’d never guess what some of their top priorities are for this year.

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

In the real world as well as on social media, many Iowa Democratic activists have been talking about Rich Leopold this week. Since announcing his candidacy for governor on Wednesday, Leopold has reached out to county chairs and other local leaders in a bunch of towns. I hope his early, aggressive campaign will drive other Democrats thinking about this race to start pounding the pavement sooner rather than later. I’m all for a spirited, competitive 2018 primary.

Longtime Johnson County elections office worker John Deeth wrote a must-read “deep dig” about the real-world implications of “the proposed voter ID legislation, with the Orwellian name ‘Voter Integrity,’ launched by Secretary of State Paul Pate on Thursday.” Key point: county auditors of both parties are not fans of voter ID, “because they’ve been on the front lines of dealing with the public and they know that it doesn’t solve anything and that it will make it harder for the public.” Bleeding Heartland’s take on Pate’s solution in search of a problem is here.

Des Moines Register statehouse reporter Brianne Pfannenstiel published a heartbreaking account of her mother’s terminal illness during the presidential campaign, a “sudden and devastating” ordeal that still “hurts like hell every day.”

Along with most Iowa politics watchers, I’m gearing up for the 2017 Iowa legislative session, which begins on Monday. First, let’s take care of some unfinished business from 2016. Like many political writers and a fair number of Bleeding Heartland readers, I had a horrendous year for predictions.

Following the standard Republican playbook, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate announced a series of steps today that would make it harder for thousands of Iowans to exercise their right to vote. He produced no evidence of any fraud problems his proposals would solve, which isn’t surprising, because Iowa is already one of the most highly-rated states for electoral integrity.

One of my blogging new year’s resolutions for 2016 was to publish more work by other authors, and I’m grateful to the many talented writers who helped me meet that goal. After the jump I’ve linked to all 140 guest posts published here last year.

I encourage readers to consider writing for this site in 2017. Guest authors can write about any political issue of local, state, or national importance. As you can see from the stories enclosed below, a wide range of topics and perspectives are welcome here.

Pieces can be short or long, funny or sad. You can write in a detached voice or let your emotions show.

Posts can analyze what happened or advocate for what should happen, either in terms of public policy or a political strategy for Democrats. Authors can share first-person accounts of campaign events or more personal reflections about public figures.

Guest authors do not need to e-mail a draft to me or ask permission to pursue a story idea. Just register for an account (using the “sign up” link near the upper right), log in, write a post, edit as needed, and hit “submit for review” when you are ready to publish. The piece will be “pending” until I approve it for publication, to prevent spammers from using the site to sell their wares. You can write under your own name or choose any pseudonym not already claimed by another Bleeding Heartland user. I do not reveal authors’ identity without their permission.

I also want to thank everyone who comments on posts here. If you’ve never participated that way, feel free to register for a user account and share your views. If you used to comment occasionally but have not done so lately, you may need to reset your password. Let me know if you have any problems registering for an account, logging in, or changing a password. My address is near the lower right-hand corner of this page.

For the first time last year, I put some thought into what posts had consumed the greatest amount of my energy. I realized that some of those deep dives were among my most satisfying writing projects. That new awareness informed my editorial choices in good and bad ways. Unfortunately, some election-related stories I would have covered in previous cycles didn’t get written in 2016, because I was immersed in other topics. On the plus side, those rabbit holes led to work I’m proud to have published.

Assembling this post was more challenging than last year’s version. Several pieces that would have been among my most labor-intensive in another year didn’t make the cut. A couple of posts that might have made the top ten were not ready to go before the holidays. Maybe they will end up in a future collection of seventeen posts I worked hardest on in 2017.

Iowa’s leading civil rights advocacy groups have joined forces, fighting for changes that would allow thousands of Iowans who have completed felony sentences to “be full members of society and exercise their right to vote.” The seventeen groups in the new Restore Fair Voting Rights in Iowa coalition include the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, the Iowa-Nebraska NAACP, and the League of Women Voters of Iowa.

Their efforts are badly needed, because even after two “streamlinings” of the process Governor Terry Branstad established on his first day back in office, an embarrassingly small number of Iowans have regained the right to vote.

As the results of the upcoming Presidential election are impending, much ink – digital and print – and more breath have been spent discussing “The Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court’s fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, famously wrote, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), that the United States Supreme Court “emphatically” has “the province and duty . . . to say what the law is.”

When John Marshall wrote that, the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court was set by the Judiciary Act of 1789 at six by the Congress (the Federal legislature) of the United States – the Chief Justice and five associate justices. That is because there is no set number of justices articulated in the United States Constitution. Article III of the United States Constitution governs the powers of the Federal judiciary. Article I of the United States Constitution governs the responsibilities of the Federal legislature, which is the bi-cameral body (the Senate and the House of Representatives) collectively known as the Congress of the United States.

Pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44 (1869)), an act passed by Congress, and currently found at 28 U.S.C. § 1, the number of United States Supreme Court justices is now set at nine.

Prior to 1869, the number had been as high as 10.

Currently, there are eight United States Supreme Court justices due to a vacancy created by the death of Associate Justice, Antonin Gregory Scalia, which occurred nine months ago on February 13, 2016.

The office of the Presidency of the United States is created by the United States Constitution under Article II, regarding the “Executive” branch of government. See U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 1. Among the constitutional powers of the President is the power – and the duty – to appoint Federal judges. That authority is found at U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 2 (“He [yes, he – not he or she] shall have Power . . . and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme court and other Officers of the United States. . . .”).

During this presidential election cycle, the question has come up, again and again, whether the Senate has a co-existing duty to provide “Advice and Consent.” Particularly this year, and particularly in Iowa, this question has been a topic of discussion because Iowa’s own senior Senator, Charles Ernest Grassley, a Republican, is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (the committee that, among other things, presides over hearings on Federal judicial nominees), in a Senate whose majority is currently Republican, and who is running for re-election. Senator Grassley has stated publicly that Merrick Brian Garland – the judge outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama has nominated to fill the vacancy created by Associate Justice Scalia’s death – will not be considered by the Judiciary Committee because President Obama nominated him during an election year.

The truth is, the Senate probably does have a Constitutional duty to consider the Article III judicial nominations made by the President. But, it’s not clear. The Constitution itself, in Article I (the article laying out the make-up and responsibilities of the Senate and the House of Representatives), is silent on the matter. But, under Article II, the article laying out the powers and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the United States generally, and of the President of the United States particularly, the Constitution gives a duty to the president to nominate and, upon the Senate’s approval, appoint, Federal Judges (defined generally, by Article III, but particularly United States Supreme Court justices).

The Constitution, by virtue of creating the duty in the President, makes some assumption that the Senate, upon being created by Article II, will follow through with acting on the nomination. But again, Article I, which creates the Senate, doesn’t specify how the Senate should handle presidential nominations of judges or anybody else.

To the extent there is some dormant obligation on the part of the Senate to be read in the Constitution, the Senate has ignored it for nearly 200 years. A March 16, 2016 “Fact Check” commentary in The Washington Post called, “Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?” cites President John Quincy Adams’ lame duck nomination of a potential justice in December 1828 – two months after he lost his bid for re-election, three months before his successor, Andrew Jackson, would take office. The Senate ignored the nomination. President Jackson, shortly after his inauguration, nominated the successor, who was later approved by the Senate, and appointed. The Post’s commentary, written by Glenn Kessler, concludes that

Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

Then, of course, there is the situation where Congress is not in session. The President has power under the Constitution to appoint Federal judges when that situation arises. It should not go unnoticed that, since this past February, the Senate has jiggered its individual members’ time such that someone is always, at least, present in Washington, so, technically, the Senate is never in recess.

Judges of the United States Supreme Court, being among the “Officers of the United States,” the President has the power to appoint them while the Senate is in recess, pursuant to by U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 3, but upon the Senate’s return, the Senate must confirm that appointment by the end of its term – typically meaning, the end of that calendar year. Indeed, Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Jr. (1956), Associate Justice Potter Stewart (1958) and, perhaps most significantly, Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953), were all recess appointees of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose appointments were subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate.

Justice Brennan’s appointment was not only a recess appointment, but a 1956 appointment. Nineteen fifty six was an election year and moderate conservative President Eisenhower was running for re-election. William J. Brennan was a Roman Catholic Democrat, a moderate liberal, and from the northeast. He was, in other words, a superfecta nominee for a Republican President seeking to please those four constituencies that year. At the time, William Joseph Brennan Jr. was serving his fifth year as an associate justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, following a brief tenure (less than two years) as a New Jersey trial judge.

Associate Justice Potter Stewart was perhaps the first of only two “swing justices” in the United States Supreme Court’s history; the predecessor to Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who is currently an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
Earl Warren, governor of California, had run against General Dwight David Eisenhower for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1952. Prior to Eisenhower’s subsequent nomination, young, California Senator, Richard M. Nixon, had publicly endorsed Governor Warren for the Republican Party’s nomination. Nixon – feral, self-serving and despicable always – turned on fellow Californian Warren like Peter to Jesus before the cock crowed, when then-General Eisenhower offered Nixon the vice presidency if Eisenhower were elected.

Consequently, in 1953, Nixon actually had a legitimate reason to be paranoid about Warren’s political retribution. Likewise, then-President Eisenhower owed Warren, big time. Initially, Eisenhower offered Warren the role of United States Solicitor General (whose office argues all Federal appeals to the United States Supreme Court) and promised to follow that up with a Supreme Court appointment once a vacancy arose. Before he could announce his appointment of Warren as Solicitor General, however, a Supreme Court vacancy arose.

As happened most recently when District of Columbia Circuit Judge John Glover Roberts Jr., who had never served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court before being nominated for a Chief Justice slot (Chief Justice William J. Rehnquist having passed away), Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower, not only as a new Supreme Court justice, but to the position of Chief Justice, replacing Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who died unexpectedly in 1953.

In 1953, Earl Warren was everything that a Republican President in 2016 would want in a Supreme Court Justice. First, he was a Republican up-and-comer with a solid, conservative background. In any election cycle other than 1952, he probably would have been President of the United States. But in 1952, bolstered by his status as a five-star general in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Republican nominee who ultimately won the presidency by huge numbers (442 electoral votes to his opponent, Adlai Stephenson’s 89 electoral votes).

In 1953, Earl Warren was serving his third term as Governor of California. As governor, he had successfully used New Deal financial initiatives to create jobs in California, chiefly through the creation of vast infrastructure initiatives like highways and bridges, and higher education both in terms of advancing scholarship and constructing brick-and-mortar institutions with the expansion of the University of California system with universities, colleges and community colleges.

Prior to becoming California’s longest-serving Republican governor (his tenure in California has only recently been surpassed by current Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, who was previously California governor in the 1970s), Earl Warren had been the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Warren was responsible for implementing a number of programs Americans now view as loathsome and reprehensible. Perhaps his most unfortunate and enduring legacy was the internment of Japanese immigrants – among them many, many American citizens of Japanese descent – during World War II. Likewise, Warren enforced laws that promoted eugenics in the form of sterilization of Mexicans, Asians and Native Americans – primarily women – in order to have their communities die out so that the state could confiscate their land.

Prior to becoming attorney general, Warren had been a “tough on crime,” “law and order” county attorney for Alameda County, targeting bootleggers and corrupt politicians.

Warren went on, then, to become the Chief Justice who, with a compliment of like-minded jurists from 1953 through his retirement in 1969, ushered in perhaps the most liberal Constitutional case law in the history of the Supreme Court. Right out of the shoot, the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1954, and held, unanimously, that separate but equal school systems for Black children and White children were inherently unequal. Brown overturned more than half a century of precedent from its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision to the effect, separate accommodations in every aspect of public life from rail cars to rest rooms, was equal and acceptable.

Likewise, the Warren court, in 1962, decided a case about Congressional redistricting that was so gut wrenching for the justices that one of them, Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker, a conservative justice from Missouri who had only been on the Court for six years, recused himself and quit the Court the next year. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution afforded equal protection under state legislatures’ redistricting laws. Generally, states re-draw their Congressional districts in order to make them relatively equal in population. They do this by using the United States census. The affect to redrawing Congressional districts is, the interests of the populace change based on how you determine the population. And, as a result of that, state legislatures “gerrymander” the districts, such that, to draw them out on a map, they look like a crazy quilt, because they are rigged to retain a certain party’s power, while fulfilling the obligation to keep the districts relatively equal in terms of population.

But that is a story for another time.

In Baker, the plaintiff was a Tennessee mayor living in an urban district seeking re-election in the late 1950s who noticed that the Congressional districts hadn’t changed since 1901, following the 1900 Federal census. In that half century, the population had shifted from primarily rural to urban, but the district map had not been updated; the district had not been reapportioned. The defendant, Joe Carr, was the Tennessee secretary of state, based on the fact he was officially in charge of conducting free and fair elections. The only question for the court at the time was whether the matter was purely legislative, and the responsibility of the state’s elected officials to sort out, or whether it was something courts could decide.

The Warren Court, split 6-2, with Justice Whittaker abstaining, ruled in Baker that reapportionment was “justiciable:” whether, under Article III, the case was either a “case” or “controversy.” Article III § 2 cl. 2 of the United States Constitution lays out the jurisdiction (what it calls the “judicial power of the United States”) of the United States Supreme Court and “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This was a very big deal because, as is just as true today, the dividing line between states’ rights and Federal government intrusion was a major issue. In the ruling, the court went out of its way to list a series of cases that, it said, confirmed that reapportionment was always justiciable. That being said, the question arose, “Why now, then?” The answer, history has shown, is that the Warren court “went there;” all previous courts had begged off.

But that is as far as it went. The Supreme Court’s Baker ruling did not decide whether Tennessee’s Congressional districts were Constitutional; it remanded the case back to the trial court to make that determination.

Until 1964, when the court exercised its newly-proclaimed justiciability over Congressional redistricting, in a case called, Reynolds v. Sims. The question in Reynolds was whether a state’s redistricting of its own legislative districts was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. There, the Alabama Constitution called for one state senator for every county. Voters in Jefferson County, Alabama – home of the state’s capital, Birmingham, objected to the consequential disparity between the power of their senator, representing a densely populated urban region, and that of any senator from some rural and sparsely populated county.

As in Baker, the apportionment of Alabama counties in Reynolds was based on the 1900 census and a 1901 statute setting forth the rules of redistricting. As in Baker with respect to Missouri, much had changed in those 50 + years, population-wise, in Alabama. In Reynolds, the population variations were so lopsided that when comparing urban and rural counties, the Court found that in some cases, a senator would receive 41 votes in one county for 1 vote received by a senator in another county.

The court was careful in Reynolds to point out that “No effective political remedy to obtain relief against the alleged malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature appears to have been available.” The court was obviously still concerned about the impression the Federal judiciary (nine unelected judges) was forcing its preferences onto the people (judicial activism). It observed that, in order to change the redistricting in Alabama, there had to be a constitutional amendment and constitutional amendments in Alabama could only occur through a 3/5 majority of legislators agreeing to one, followed by a simple majority vote of the people or, by means of a constitutional convention called after a simple majority of the popular vote, and approved by a majority of senators and house legislators. The senators and house members, having obtained their seats through the lopsided system created in 1901, were not likely to change anything.

Ultimately, the court found that the system was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and that the constitution required a system to permit a proportional, one person-one vote, plan. The court wrote, as follows:
History indicates, however, that many States have deviated, to a greater or lesser degree, from the equal-population principle in the apportionment of seats in at least one house of their legislatures, So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature. But neither history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes. Considerations of area alone provide an insufficient justification for deviations from the equal-population principle. Again, people, not land or trees or pastures, vote. Modern developments and improvements in transportation and communications make rather hollow, in the mid-1960’s, most claims that deviations from population-based representation can validly be based solely on geographical considerations. Arguments for allowing such deviations in order to insure effective representation for sparsely settled areas and to prevent legislative districts from becoming so large that the availability of access of citizens to their representatives is impaired are today, for the most part, unconvincing.

Voting rights was a major civil rights issue in 1964, as they continue to be today, 52 years later. But it took the Warren court to break through a century of states running amok with voting schemes that disenfranchised voters. One of the important issues Hillary Clinton raised during the second Presidential debate was voter disenfranchisement.

Aside from voting rights, the Warren court declared in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution afforded indigent Federal prisoners the right to defense counsel paid for by the Federal government. And, in 1968, the Warren court ruled, in Miranda v. Arizona, that a criminal suspect must have his rights explained to him before being interrogated by law enforcement officials – especially the right to remain silent, because anything said can, and will, be used against that suspect.

This level of Constitutional analysis resulting in such a sweeping installment of rights to so many people in such a brief, 16 year period, is viewed by many as unprecedented since Chief Justice Marshall articulated the power of the Federal courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court.

As will be discussed in subsequent installments, there are several questions about the outcome of the 2016 Presidential campaign as it relates to the Supreme Court as a body, and as it relates to the individual justices as legal scholars. As I have just demonstrated, Chief Justice Earl Warren turned out to be the polar opposite of what President Eisenhower would have wanted, much less expected, from the hard-as-nails/law and order California governor and attorney general that Warren had been before presiding over the United States Supreme Court.

Just as clearly, and as demonstrated prior to the recent appointments of Associate Justices Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, a block of justices appointed by Presidents of a certain political ideology can affect the types of cases, and the outcomes of cases, coming before the Supreme Court.

Over the next four, and potentially eight, years, the next president is likely to replace up to four justices on the United States Supreme Court – two of them (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Gerald Breyer), appointees of Democratic, politically moderate, President William Jefferson Clinton and two of them (Associate Justices Antonin Gregory Scalia and Anthony McLeod Kennedy), appointees of Republican, politically conservative, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Sometimes, as in the case of the period Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the Court, that can mean a great deal. Other times, like the past 37 years since Chief Justice Warren retired, and that sesquicentennial period between Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion and the commencement of Chief Justice Warren’s term on the Supreme Court began in 1953, it hasn’t seemed to matter much at all.

The massive racial disparities in Iowa’s criminal justice system have long been recognized as among the worst in the country, spurring calls to action not only by advocacy groups but also by Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady and even Governor Terry Branstad.

Yet a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch shows that African-American adults in Iowa are seven times more likely than whites to be arrested for drug possession–an imbalance second only to Montana.

Leaders of the campaigns to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010 and 2012 have chosen not to engage in this year’s retention elections, which will decide whether the last three justices who participated in Iowa’s marriage equality ruling will stay on the bench.

However, the coalition formed to stop “extremists from hijacking Iowa’s courts” is taking no chances. Justice Not Politics commissioned a statewide poll last week to gauge voters’ attitudes toward Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Brent Appel and Daryl Hecht, as well as some issues related to controversial Iowa Supreme Court rulings.

Three of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the historic Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage equality lost their jobs in the 2010 judicial retention elections. A fourth survived a similar campaign against retaining him in 2012.

The last three Varnum justices, including the author of the unanimous opinion striking down our state’s Defense of Marriage Act, will appear on Iowa ballots this November. At this writing, no one seems to be organizing any effort to vote them off the bench. Iowa’s anti-retention campaigns in 2010 and 2012 were well under way by the end of August, but the social conservatives who spearheaded those efforts have shown no interest in repeating the experience.

I don’t usually write posts like this one.

Check that: I don’t think I’ve ever written a post like this one.

I’m making an exception because the question has been nagging at me since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its 4-3 decision in Griffin v Pate two weeks ago today, and because a number of people who share my interest in felon voting rights have asked for my opinion.

Only Chief Justice Mark Cady knows the answer, and we won’t hear his side of the story until he writes his memoirs or speaks to some interviewer in retirement.

So with no claim to telepathic powers and full awareness that my analysis may therefore be flawed, I will do my best to understand why the author of the 2014 opinion that inspired Kelli Jo Griffin’s lawsuit ultimately decided our state constitution “permits persons convicted of a felony to be disqualified from voting in Iowa until pardoned or otherwise restored to the rights of citizenship.”

On Monday Governor Terry Branstad defended his policy that has kept tens of thousands of Iowans from exercising what he calls the “privilege” of voting.

His excuses don’t change the reality that he has turned a fundamental constitutional right into a “pay to play” situation for Iowans convicted of felonies.

Karl Schilling is a retired investigator for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and has long been active with the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance, for which he currently serves as president. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Until recently I opposed the vote for felons I think, in large part, because of my irritation at three of the reasons commonly given in defense of felon voter rights. They are usually in the same sentence and go something like this, “We all make mistakes, they did their time, and they have paid their debt to society.”

A week ago today, four Iowa Supreme Court justices upheld the lifetime ban on voting for Iowans convicted of all felonies, which are defined as “infamous crimes” under a 1994 state law. Chief Justice Mark Cady’s opinion in Griffin v. Pate and three dissents are available here; Bleeding Heartland posted key excerpts here.

A decision in Kelli Jo Griffin’s favor could have made tens of thousands of Iowans newly eligible to vote in this year’s presidential election. Instead, Iowa will likely retain its place as one of the most restrictive states on felon voting for years.

In theory, those who have completed sentences can apply to have Governor Terry Branstad restore their voting rights. Griffin plans to do so, and I expect Branstad to make a big show of approving her application. In practice, though, that option will be available only to a small minority of those affected by the governor’s January 2011 executive order. During the first five years the new policy was in effect, less than two-tenths of 1 percent of disenfranchised felons managed to regain the right to vote, an average of fewer than 20 people per year.

I am awaiting information from the governor’s office on restoration numbers since the latest “streamlining” of the official form in April, but I don’t expect the number of applicants ever to become more than a trickle. The financial and other barriers will remain too great.

Even if Branstad started receiving substantially more applications and approved them at a rate of 20 per week–unlikely since this work already occupies “meaningful amounts of time every day” for the governor’s staff–only about 1,000 people annually would be able to regain their voting rights. That’s less than 2 percent of the estimated 57,000 Iowans who have been disenfranchised since January 2011. Thousands more join their ranks every year. So much for an “efficient and convenient” restoration process.

Three paths are available to bring Iowa in line with how most states approach voting rights for people with felony convictions.

The Iowa Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging state policy on disenfranchising all felons. Four justices found “insufficient evidence to overcome the 1994 legislative judgment” defining all felonies as “infamous crimes,” which under our state’s constitution lead to a lifetime ban on the right to vote or run for office. Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the majority ruling, joined by Justices Bruce Zager, Edward Mansfield, and Thomas Waterman. They affirmed a district court ruling, which held that having committed a felony, Kelli Jo Griffin lost her voting rights under Iowa law.

Justices Brent Appel, Daryl Hecht, and David Wiggins wrote separate dissenting opinions, each joined by the other dissenters. I enclose below excerpts from all the opinions, along with early political reaction to the majority ruling and a statement from Griffin herself.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa filed the lawsuit on behalf of Griffin in November 2014, seven months after an Iowa Supreme Court plurality had stated, “It will be prudent for us to develop a more precise test that distinguishes between felony crimes and infamous crimes” that disqualify Iowans from voting.

Three of the six justices who participated in that 2014 case decided Griffin v. Pate differently. In Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel, Cady wrote and Zager joined the plurality opinion, which left open the possibility that not all felonies rise to the level of infamous crimes. Wiggins dissented from the Chiodo plurality, saying the court should not rewrite “nearly one hundred years of caselaw” to “swim into dangerous and uncharted waters.”

All credit to Ryan Koopmans for pointing out in March that given how quickly the court had decided Chiodo, “Having had more than a couple days to think about it, some of the justices could easily change their mind.” The justices were on a compressed schedule in Chiodo because of the need to print ballots in time for the early voting period starting 40 days before the 2014 Democratic primary. Ned Chiodo was challenging the eligibility of Tony Bisignano, a rival candidate in Iowa Senate district 17.

Side note before I get to the key points from today’s decisions: An enormous opportunity was missed when the state legislature did not revise the 1994 law defining infamous crimes between 2007 and 2010, when Democrats controlled the Iowa House and Senate and Chet Culver was governor. The issue did not seem particularly salient then, because Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2005 executive order had created a process for automatically restoring the voting rights of most felons who had completed their sentences.

But Governor Terry Branstad rescinded Vilsack’s order on his first day back in office in January 2011. During the first five years after Branstad’s executive order, fewer than 100 people (two-tenths of 1 percent of those who had been disenfranchised) successfully navigated the process for regaining voting rights. I consider the policy an unofficial poll tax, because getting your rights back requires an investment of time and resources that most ex-felons do not have. Today’s majority decision leaves this policy in effect, with a massively disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

I don’t post job listings here often, but since many Bleeding Heartland readers have substantial public policy experience and are interested in the issues at the core of the American Civil Liberties Union’s work, I wanted to spread the word that the ACLU of Iowa is hiring a policy director. The full job listing is after the jump. The non-profit organization will accept applications through June 26, with the goal of filling the position by August.

The eventual hire will be “responsible for advancing the ACLU’s broad civil liberties agenda before the state legislature, executive branch, and local governmental bodies,” leading policy projects related to “areas including but not limited to voting rights, racial justice, criminal justice reform, immigrant’s rights, free speech, reproductive freedom, women’s rights, LGBT rights and privacy rights.”

Guest posts advocating for Democratic candidates in competitive primaries are welcome here. Please read these guidelines before writing. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Plenty of chatter about the Democratic primary for Johnson County Board of Supervisors has been focused on which candidate is allied with which other candidate(s) (or not), which elected official is supporting which candidate (or not), which candidate supports which presidential candidate, and who represents real Democratic values…or not.

There are no slates in this election. I am not running with any of the other candidates on the ballot this June 7th, nor to my knowledge are any of the others. That said, a number of my supporters have made very public their support of one or two other candidacies. As you travel around Johnson County you will find my yard signs next to those of all five other candidates in the race, as well as next to those of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Rob Hogg, Tom Fiegen, and Black Lives Matter. I am honored to be in all that good company.

Last week, Governor Terry Branstad’s office rolled out a new “streamlined application form for those seeking a restoration of their voting rights,” so that “Iowa’s already simple voting rights restoration process will become even more efficient and convenient.”

“Simple,” “efficient,” and “convenient” wouldn’t be my choice of words to describe a process used successfully by less than two-tenths of 1 percent of affected Iowans since Branstad ended the automatic restoration of voting rights for felons five years ago. The governor’s first stab at simplifying the system in December 2012 did not significantly increase the number of Iowans applying to get their rights back. Three years after that change, fewer than 100 individuals out of roughly 57,000 who had completed felony sentences since January 2011 had regained the right to vote.

The new double-plus-streamlined process seems unlikely to produce a large wave of enfranchised Iowans, because it leaves intact major barriers.

The latest announcement looks like an attempt to convince Iowa Supreme Court justices that they need not intervene to give tens of thousands of felons any realistic hope of exercising a fundamental constitutional right again.

Five states along the east coast held primaries today. Donald Trump had a clean sweep on the Republican side of the so-called Acela primary, named for the Amtrak express train that connects Boston to Washington, DC. As of 8 pm central time, Trump had won more than 50 percent of the votes counted in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

Dark days lie ahead for the #NeverTrump crowd. Even if Ted Cruz manages to win the Indiana primary next week and John Kasich wins Oregon and New Mexico, stopping Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates before the Republican National Convention will be a tall order. Dave Wasserman published a good analysis of Trump’s success at FiveThirtyEight.com. I’ve posted excerpts after the jump.

Networks called Maryland for Hillary Clinton immediately after polls closed. At this writing, she has also been projected to win Pennsylvania and Delaware, while Bernie Sanders is set to win Rhode Island, and Connecticut is still too close to call. Clinton’s remarks to her supporters in Philadelphia tonight sounded very much like a general-election stump speech.

Dave Weigel noted Clinton has won eleven states she lost to Barack Obama in 2008: Iowa, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Even more striking, Weigel pointed out, “After tonight, Donald Trump will have won 12 of the 13 original colonies. He’s also favored to win in the 13th, New Jersey.”

Any comments about the presidential race are welcome in this thread. Today the admin for U.S. Senate candidate Tom Fiegen’s social media blocked me on Twitter after I challenged one of Fiegen’s many tweets suggesting the Democratic superdelegates should switch from Clinton to Sanders. So touchy! Fiegen proceeded to block several people who had re-tweeted me or commented negatively about the blocking.

UPDATE: Added below the full text of Clinton’s speech tonight and a statement released by Sanders. Although he did not concede the nomination, he appears to be shifting to a fight about the Democratic Party platform, rather than trying to beat Clinton.

SECOND UPDATE: Clinton ended up winning Connecticut by about 5 points. Trump’s margins of victory were enormous in all five states: 29 points ahead of Kasich in Connecticut, 35 points in Pennsylvania, 31 points in Maryland, 39 points in Rhode Island, and 40 points in Delaware.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate is a defendant in Kelli Jo Griffin’s lawsuit claiming Iowa violates her constitutional rights by disenfranchising all felons. The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 30. Justices are expected to decide by the end of June whether to uphold the current system or declare that Iowa’s constitutional provision on “infamous crimes” should not apply to all felonies.

Defendants typically refrain from commenting on pending litigation, but during the past three weeks, Pate has carried out an extraordinary public effort to discredit the plaintiffs in the voting rights case. In his official capacity, he has addressed a large radio audience and authored an op-ed column run by many Iowa newspapers.

Pate amped up his attack on “the other side” in speeches at three of the four Iowa GOP district conventions on April 9. After misrepresenting the goals of Griffin’s allies and distorting how a ruling for the plaintiff could alter Iowa’s electorate, the secretary of state asked hundreds of Republican activists for their help in fighting against those consequences.

At a minimum, the secretary of state has used this lawsuit to boost his own standing. Even worse, his words could be aimed at intimidating the “unelected judges” who have yet to rule on the case. Regardless of Pate’s motives, his efforts to politicize a pending Supreme Court decision are disturbing.

New York voters delivered the expected results today: a huge victory for Donald Trump and a solid showing for Hillary Clinton. Trump is winning by a large enough margin in all regions of New York to take the overwhelming share of delegates. He’s set to sweep every county in the state except for his home turf of Manhattan, where John Kasich led the early returns. Ted Cruz had to settle for third behind Kasich statewide. Over the past month he has whittled Trump’s delegate lead down, but tonight’s results are a blow to his hopes for keeping Trump below the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination.

Bernie Sanders carried quite a few upstate counties but Clinton crushed him in the five boroughs of New York City. She will add to her pledged delegate lead as well as her popular vote lead–which is symbolically important, even though delegates will determine the nominee. According to Tom Snee, Clinton rose to 90 cents on the Iowa politics prediction market after today’s primary; Sanders fell to 7 cents.

Several factors were working against Sanders today, besides the fact that Clinton represented this state in the U.S. Senate. As a group, New York Democrats are less white than Democrats in the states Sanders has been winning. Also, New York has a “closed” primary, meaning that independents were not able to change their registration. In several states, including Michigan, independent voters provided Sanders’ margin of victory. I prefer open primaries, though there is a case for allowing voters with a stake in a political party decide that party’s nominee.

What’s indefensible: New York has neither early voting nor same-day voter registration. Same-day registration alone is estimated to increase turnout by about 10 percent. Early voting would also boost participation in a state that has had some of the lowest turnout rates in the country in recent elections. New York Controller Scott Stringer offered other recommendations for making voting more accessible.

Excerpts from the Trump and Clinton victory speeches are after the jump. Any comments about the presidential race are welcome in this thread.

A 2008 amendment to the Iowa Constitution became a matter of debate in Griffin v Pate, the major voting rights case before the Iowa Supreme Court. The amendment changed Article II, Section 5, which as adopted in 1857 read, “No idiot, or insane person, or person convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.” The same section now reads, “A person adjudged mentally incompetent to vote or a person convicted of any infamous crime shall not be entitled to the privilege of an elector.”

Two of the seven Supreme Court justices have previously held that when approving the 2008 constitutional amendment, the legislature “ratified its own existing interpretation of that provision under which infamous crime meant a felony.” In its brief for the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of defendants in Griffin, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office carried forward that claim: “By failing to alter the Infamous Crime Clause when other portions of Article II, section 5 were amended, the Legislature and the public ratified the definition of infamous crime as all felonies under state and federal law.” During the March 30 Supreme Court hearing on Griffin v. Pate, Solicitor General Jeffrey Thompson likewise argued “the simple answer here” is the 2008 constitutional amendment was “passed twice by the General Assembly, adopted by the people of Iowa, in the context of a legal system and historical cases and practices that said felonies are the line.”

My curiosity piqued, I decided to look into the legislative intent behind the 2008 constitutional amendment. What I found does not support the view that Iowa lawmakers envisioned “infamous crime” as synonymous with “felony” or intended to ratify such an interpretation when voting to remove offensive language from the state constitution.

Note from desmoinesdem: The major-party candidates in House district 38 are four-term Republican incumbent Kevin Koester and Democrat Heather Matson. Brett Nelson is challenging Koester in the GOP primary. Click here to view a district map. The latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office show that House district 38 contains 6,555 active registered Democrats, 7,083 Republicans, and 6.282 no-party voters.

Jeff Meyers was nominated for State House District 38 at the Libertarian Party convention held on Saturday, March 19th. Jeff is from Ankeny and works as a fraud analyst. He is running for Iowa House to help lead the charge in the legalization of medical marijuana and cannabis/hemp production in Iowa. He wants to help Iowa students by returning to common sense education, not common core, higher budget for schools and more support for teachers. He supports the repeal of the lifetime ban on voting for past criminals. He wants to be accountable to the taxpayers by fighting for a smaller, more efficient state government and the return of the liberties that our country was founded on.

On March 30 the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Griffin v. Pate, Iowa’s most important voting rights case in many years. The court had scheduled an hour for the hearing, twice as long as for most cases. Several of the attorneys went over the allotted time, as justices interrupted frequently with questions. You can watch the entire proceeding here, and it’s well worth an hour and eighteen minutes of your time. For summaries of the key points raised, read reports by Ryan Foley for the Associated Press or Grant Rodgers for the Des Moines Register. Radio Iowa’s Dar Danielson, Iowa Public Radio’s Sarah Boden, and Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich provided shorter takes.

I’m on record predicting at least four Iowa Supreme Court justices will determine that not all felonies rise to the level of “infamous crimes.” That outcome would allow Kelli Jo Griffin and thousands of other Iowans to vote after completing their prison sentences or terms of probation or parole.

After what I heard Wednesday and watching the hearing again on YouTube, my gut feeling hasn’t changed, though I wouldn’t be shocked to see the majority go the other way. Almost certainly the decision will not be unanimous. Any comments about the Griffin case or felon disenfranchisement generally are welcome in this thread. I enclose below some of my takeaways from the oral arguments.

The Iowa State Association of Counties has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to keep tens of thousands of citizens permanently disenfranchised so county auditors will have “a definition of infamous crime that can be easily discerned and quickly applied” as they administer elections.

In addition, the association representing county officials suggests auditors will be unable to provide “the orderly conduct of elections” if the high court does not abandon efforts to distinguish certain felonies from the “infamous crimes” that disqualify Iowans from voting under our state’s constitution.

The disturbing attempt by county governments to place administrative convenience above a fundamental constitutional right came in a “friend of the court” (amicus curiae) brief filed in connection with a case the Iowa Supreme Court will consider this week. Yet Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald, the chief elections officer in Iowa’s largest county, maintains that a new standard allowing some felons to vote would not be “an administrative burden any more than the myriad other provisions that county auditors and poll-workers must contend with.”

When Congress finally passed a bill establishing a federal holiday named after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1983, national public opinion was split down the middle on whether the civil rights leader should be honored in this way. The holiday is no longer controversial, and members of Congress who voted against it, such as Senator Chuck Grassley, are quick to explain that they admire King’s work. Bleeding Heartland has compiled links related to Dr. King’s legacy and the long slog to establish this national holiday here, here, here, here, here.

I’ve been predicting for months that this year’s legislative session would mostly be a giant waste of many people’s time. I hope Iowa lawmakers and Governor Terry Branstad will prove me wrong by enacting not only the criminal justice reforms Branstad advocated in his Condition of the State speech last week, but also legislation to reduce mandatory minimum sentences, and improve police identification and interrogation procedures as well as police use of body cameras. The NAACP is pushing for a bill to ban racial profiling by law enforcement, which should not be controversial but probably will be a very heavy lift at the Capitol.

Branstad could act unilaterally to reduce one of Iowa’s massive racial disparities by revoking his 2011 executive order that has disenfranchised thousands of people, disproportionately racial minorities. (The procedure the governor established for regaining voting rights is “just about impossible” for felons to navigate.)

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. All three Democratic presidential candidates mentioned Dr. King during their opening statements during last night’s debate in South Carolina, and I’ve enclosed the videos and transcript below. I also included the part of the transcript containing Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ remarks on criminal justice reform.

Governor Terry Branstad delivered his annual Condition of the State address to members of the Iowa House and Senate and the Iowa Supreme Court justices yesterday. If you missed the speech, the full prepared text is here. Iowa Public Television posted the video and transcript here. The early part of the 30-minute address included one false or misleading assertion after another.

· “Sound budgeting practices and fiscal discipline now have us ranked as the 3rd best managed state in the nation.” Contrary to the idea that Branstad markedly improved Iowa’s operation, a major investors group also ranked Iowa the third best-managed state in 2010 under Governor Chet Culver, recognizing Iowa’s good fiscal position, high credit ratings from leading agencies, and low debt per capita compared to most other states.

· “The Iowa Economy has created 214,000 new jobs; surpassing our 2010 goal.” Sorry, no. That’s a fake statistic no economist would accept. It’s a shame the governor has instructed Iowa Workforce Development to keep cooking the books on employment.

· “If the state fails to implement managed care, the growth of Medicaid spending will consume virtually all of our revenue growth.” The Branstad administration has not been able to demonstrate that managed care will save the state money. Florida’s Medicaid privatization turned out to be more costly without improving patient care.

I was also disappointed not to hear more specifics about how Branstad envisions spending funds he would like to divert from school infrastructure to water programs. What kind of water quality programs would be prioritized, and who would administer them? Then again, details about this plan may be irrelevant, because Iowa House and Senate leaders don’t sound open to the idea.

For now, I want to focus on a much more promising part of Branstad’s address. To my surprise, the governor devoted a major section–roughly eight minutes of speaking time–to advocating for criminal justice reforms proposed by a working group he appointed in August. The group was charged with developing ideas to increase fairness and reduce racial disparities in Iowa’s criminal justice system. Click here to read the full recommendations released in November. Bleeding Heartland will discuss some of the proposals in more detail in future posts. Advocates for defendants’ rights and racial justice have generally welcomed the proposals.

Although some policies do not go far enough, and other important reforms are missing from the document, I’m encouraged to see the governor apply some political capital toward reducing systemic racism and inequities in the justice system. I enclose below the relevant portion of Branstad’s speech, with some annotations.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot to mention one thing Branstad could do immediately to address a massive racial disparity in Iowa. His executive order making it extremely difficult for felons to regain their voting rights disenfranchises Iowans of all ethnic backgrounds but disproportionately affects racial minorities.

Hoping to improve on my percentages from last year, I offer sixteen Iowa politics predictions for 2016. Please spin your own scenarios in this thread.

I finally gave up on trying to predict whether Governor Terry Branstad will still be in office at the end of the year. Although his close adviser David Roederer “emphatically” says Branstad will serve out his sixth term, I am convinced the governor will resign early. But I can’t decide whether that will happen shortly after the November 2016 election or shortly after the Iowa legislature’s 2017 session.

Polk County District Court Chief Judge Arthur Gamble on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged Iowa’s restrictions on felon voting and procedure for regaining voting rights after a felony conviction. Kelli Jo Griffin filed the lawsuit last November, having previously been acquitted on perjury charges related to registering to vote and casting a ballot in a local election. Griffin did not realize she was ineligible to vote because of a prior drug conviction. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa is representing her in the case, which claims Iowa law and an executive order Governor Terry Branstad issued in January 2011 unconstitutionally restrict the plaintiff’s fundamental right to vote.

A plurality of three Iowa Supreme Court justices indicated last April that they do not believe all felonies rise to the level of “infamous crimes,” which under the Iowa Constitution justify revoking citizenship rights. But that opinion did not strike down current Iowa law, which holds that any felony conviction leads to the loss of voting rights. Chief Judge Gamble noted in his ruling that he is bound by precedent on felon voting cases “until a majority of the Iowa Supreme Court” rules otherwise.

The chief judge also determined that Branstad’s executive order does not unconstitutionally restrict Griffin’s voting rights, because the paperwork and fees required are “not an unreasonable burden for a felon to shoulder.” His conclusions don’t acknowledge certain realities about the arduous process Branstad established, which “made Iowa one of the most difficult states in the nation for felons who want to vote” and create more hurdles for low-income Iowans than for those with financial resources. I enclose more thoughts on that angle below, after excerpts from Gamble’s ruling.

The ACLU will appeal the District Court’s decision to the Iowa Supreme Court. Ever since an unlikely chain of events opened the door for the high court to re-examine felon voting rights, it’s been obvious some non-violent offender like Griffin would bring a test case resembling this one. The big question now is whether Justice Brent Appel, who recused himself from last year’s related case, will align with his three colleagues who appear ready to declare that certain felonies are not “infamous crimes.”

Yesterday was Women’s Equality Day, marking the anniversary of American women gaining the right to vote in 1920 under the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Iowa nearly adopted a state-level woman-suffrage amendment on two occasions before that time. Inspired to learn more about those close calls, this week I read part of Louise Noun’s 1969 book Strong-Minded Women: The Emergence of the Woman-Suffrage Movement in Iowa. The short version of what I learned is after the jump.

Spoiler alert: Republicans in the Bleeding Heartland community may enjoy this post more than Democrats.  

The U.S. Treasury Department announced yesterday, “Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has decided that the new $10 note should feature a woman who was a champion for our inclusive democracy […].”

Many people shared my immediate reaction: why not dump President Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill instead? Binyamin Appelbaum put it most succinctly: “Hard choices: Should we get rid of the hard-working immigrant on the $10 bill or the homicidal racist on the $20 bill? Hmmmmm”. Alexandra Petri explained in more detail why Jackson doesn’t deserve the honor of being on our currency. Among other things, he bears responsibility for the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent “Trail of Tears,” one of the most shameful crimes in U.S. history. As Steven Mufson pointed out, Hamilton “was a founding father, co-author of the Federalist Papers, Revolutionary War staff aide to George Washington, first Treasury Secretary and architect of the early American economy.’ Someone already started a White House petition to keep Hamilton on the $10 bill, but the Treasury Department’s FAQ page on “The New 10” don’t indicate that switching the $20 bill is an option.

Currency is primarily redesigned as necessary to address current and potential security threats to currency notes. When recommending a note for redesign, the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence (ACD) Steering Committee considers these primary goals: that U.S. currency utilizes unique and technologically advanced security features to deter counterfeiting, that it facilitates the public’s use and authentication, provides accessibility and usability, and maintains public confidence. Based on analysis of these criteria, in June 2013, the Committee recommended that the $10 note should be the next note to be redesigned, assuming no other counterfeit threats emerge.

This thread is for any opinions about who belongs on the new currency. My first choice to celebrate women’s contributions to democracy would be Carrie Chapman Catt, a “Key coordinator of the woman suffrage movement and skillful political strategist.” She grew up in Charles City, Iowa, graduated from what later became Iowa State University, then worked in Charles City and Mason City.

Another good choice would be Francis Perkins, the first woman to serve in the president’s cabinet as labor secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Who’s up for some good news on Friday the 13th? Part of former Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s legacy of voter suppression died today. The Iowa Supreme Court will not hear an appeal of a District Court decision that invalidated Schultz’s effort to enact rules on purging Iowa voter rolls. The court dismissed the case at the request of the Secretary of State’s Office.

Seeking to address a problem that has grown along with absentee voting, Iowa House Republicans approved a bill yesterday to set new restrictions on which mailed ballots may be counted. Backers said the change would provide more consistency to the system. But the change may not reduce the number of ballots tossed out every election year.

This afternoon the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Senate-passed version of a bill that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. As was the case last month, all four Iowans were part of the House majority that passed the bill by 270 votes to 152 (roll call). Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was one of 29 Democrats who voted yes today; his record on previous bills related to the pipeline is mixed. President Barack Obama has said he will veto the Keystone XL bill. The big question is what he will do if Congress includes similar language in other “must-pass” legislation.

Yesterday the House passed two bills related to the Transportation Security Agency. Members unanimously approved a bill “aimed at stopping the Transportation Security Agency from overpaying some of its workers to act as investigators, when they aren’t really investigating anything,” Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Blaze. The other bill, approved with only one dissenting vote, is intended to improve security at U.S. airports, in particular contingency plans for terrorist incidents.

Also today, House members including all four Iowans unanimously approved a bill to award “a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” However, House Republicans rejected calls from Democratic leaders to quickly pass legislation that would reanimate the Voting Rights Act after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of that law in 2013.  

Starting next year, Iowans who have a driver’s license or other state-issued identification will be able to register to vote online. From a press release the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office sent out this afternoon:

(DES MOINES)  Today, the Iowa Voter Registration Commission adopted a rule that will allow eligible voters who possess a valid driver’s license or state ID to apply for their voter registration on-line.  This system is scheduled to be in place by early 2016. […]

On-line voter registration will be available to eligible voters with a valid Iowa driver’s license or a state issued ID.  This represents 93% of the state’s eligible voters.  The goal is to continue to work on ways to expand this opportunity in the future so that on-line registration will eventually be available to all eligible voters, including those without driver’s licenses.

Secretary Pate said, “This is a significant step.  We had a productive meeting with the DOT and are confident we can be up and going before the 2016 election.  We’ll continue to work further on the issue to expand voter registration to other groups for on-line access.”

The voter registration application will be hosted on both the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Secretary of State website.

Jason Noble reported for the Des Moines Register,

Because the system will rely on electronic signatures on file with the DOT [Department of Transportation], online registration will be available only to Iowans with a driver license or non-operator ID. […]

The potential lack of access has raised concerns among some voting-rights advocates and appeared to trouble Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Troy Price, a member of the commission.

“Are there ways that we’ll be able to capture those folks who currently don’t have a driver’s license?” Price wondered aloud during the meeting.

A growing number of young people are in no hurry to obtain drivers licenses for various reasons. In addition, Iowa’s aging population includes more and more people who can’t or don’t drive anymore. I’m glad Pate is promising that his office will keep working to reach Iowans without a driver’s license, but Democrats should not take their eye off this ball.

In the busy days before Thanksgiving, I missed this unintentional comedy from Governor Terry Branstad’s weekly press conference (hat tip to Todd Dorman):

“There’s also a constitutional question about whether the president of the United States has the authority to act unilaterally on issues like this [immigration policy],” Branstad said. “So I expect there’s going to be a lot of unanswered questions that I need to get information about and what the impact would have on our state.”

Asked if he would take executive action on state immigration policy, Branstad responded, “We don’t operate that way in Iowa.”

“That’s the difference between Washington, D.C., and Iowa,” Branstad said. “In Iowa, I’m very careful to recognize the separation of powers and to work with the Legislature.”

Where to begin?

November 4 was a devastating day for Iowa Democrats, but let’s look on the bright side for a moment.

1. Democrats held the Iowa Senate majority.

Since 2011, the Iowa Senate has kept us off the disastrous path followed by Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states where Republicans control the trifecta. I’m disappointed that with a favorable map, Democrats weren’t able to expand their Iowa Senate contingent to 27 or 28. State Senator Daryl Beall was one of the good ones and will be missed by many. But a wave like that could have done a lot more damage.

For at least two more years, the Iowa Senate will continue to be a firewall against all kinds of horrible legislation that Iowa House Republicans will pass and Governor Terry Branstad would sign.

2. Iowa is no longer in a club with Mississippi.

All week, I’ve been reflecting on the many thoughtful and capable women who have been involved in Iowa politics during my lifetime. Not only Democrats, but also Republicans from Mary Louise Smith to Joy Corning to Mary Lundby and most recently, Mariannette Miller-Meeks. These women cared about public policy and ran for office to get things done. They weren’t recruited by strategists who thought they would be a marketable package. For this place in history to go to someone as ignorant and stage-managed as Joni Ernst feels very wrong.

That said, at least my children will not grow up believing that Iowans are too narrow-minded to elect a woman to Congress.

3. The Iowa Supreme Court is more likely to expand voting rights for thousands of non-violent ex-felons.

I had hoped Staci Appel would become Iowa’s first woman in Congress, but this wasn’t the year to be running against a guy who projects as a generic Republican.

The good news is that Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel will almost certainly be able to hear a lawsuit expected to be filed soon, which would challenge Iowa’s current law on voting rights. In April, a divided Iowa Supreme Court allowed Tony Bisignano to appear on the ballot despite a aggravated misdemeanor conviction. Three of the seven justices indicated that they were prepared to strike down a 1994 law defining all felonies as “infamous crimes,” which under the Iowa Constitution lead to the loss of a citizen’s voting rights. Three other justices disagreed with that opinion for various reasons and would uphold current law.

Justice Appel recused himself from the Bisignano case, but in other non-unanimous rulings he has usually joined the justices who believe not all felonies should disqualify Iowans from voting (Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Daryl Hecht and Bruce Zager).

Iowa Supreme Court justices tend to err on the side of recusing themselves, rather than hearing cases where there could be any appearance of a conflict of interest. Had Staci Appel won on Tuesday, I suspect Brent Appel would not have weighed in on any case affecting who might be able to vote to re-elect his wife. His participation could make the difference between a 3-3 split and a 4-3 majority ruling rendering the legislative definition of an “infamous crime” as unconstitutional. Thousands of Iowans with non-violent felony convictions might then be able to vote, as felons can do in most other states upon completion of their sentences.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post, I didn’t know the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa was planning to file a lawsuit today challenging Iowa’s restriction on felon voting rights. The ACLU of Iowa is acting on behalf of Kelli Jo Griffin, who was tried and acquitted for voter fraud earlier this year. After the jump I’ve enclosed the announcement, with more background and detail on the lawsuit.  

The Iowa secretary of state campaign looks like a nail-biter. Neither Democrat Brad Anderson nor Republican Paul Pate has had a lead outside the margin of error in any public poll I’ve seen. The new Loras College statewide survey shows Anderson barely ahead of Pate by 39.9 percent to 39.0 percent. That survey did not include the other two candidates running for secretary of state, even though Libertarian Jake Porter received about 3 percent of the statewide vote in 2010.

When Anderson and Pate appeared jointly on Iowa Public Television earlier this month (in a “job interview” that resembled a debate), major differences between the candidates were apparent. Pate would continue outgoing Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s crusade for a voter ID law, an expensive “fix” to a non-existent problem, which risks disenfranchising voters. Anderson proposes several ideas to improve the voter file and maintain security, without depressing turnout.

During the same “Iowa Press” program, Pate hedged on whether former employees of the Secretary of State’s Office should pay back the state for salary and benefits they received for doing no work. I’ve enclosed that exchange after the jump. I would guess that 90 percent of Iowans agree with Anderson: it’s a “no-brainer” that these people should pay back the money.

Pate’s campaign website is mostly devoid of policy ideas. His case to voters is simple: he has more experience, having served as secretary of state before, he supports voter ID requirements, and he is a “non-partisan leader,” as opposed to his “partisan political operative” opponent. Never mind that Pate once sought the position of Iowa GOP chair.

Compared to Pate, Anderson has proposed more specific ideas for improving the work of the Secretary of State’s Office. (For that matter, so has Porter.) Anderson’s campaign website includes not only ideas to make Iowa number one in voter turnout, but also proposals to make it easier to start a business, create a new registry for veteran-owned businesses, improve the integrity of the Iowa caucuses, make it easier for overseas and military voters to cast ballots, and most recently, an address confidentiality program that would allow survivors of domestic abuse or sexual violence “to register to vote, cast a ballot, and go about daily life without fear for safety.” (Pate’s campaign quickly announced that the Republican also supports “Safe at Home” measures.)

Anderson and Pate are still running the television and radio commercials Bleeding Heartland covered here. In addition, a group I’d never heard of called iVote has spent just under $30,000 to run a tv ad opposing Pate. Democratic strategists created the new political action committee to get involved in several secretary of state races. When I saw iVote’s spot for the first time during a lunchtime local newscast, the unorthodox style caught my attention. I’ve enclosed the video and transcript below. The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s fact-checker rated this ad “true.”

Speaking of the Gazette, that newspaper endorsed Anderson today, saying he would offer “a clean break” from the “sorry chapter” of Schultz’s tenure as secretary of state. Click through to read the whole editorial, or scroll own to read excerpts. How embarrassing for Pate not to get the support of his hometown newspaper. He’s been a local business owner for decades as well as a former Cedar Rapids mayor and former state senator representing part of Linn County.  

President Barack Obama announced today that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will resign as soon as a successor is confirmed. Carrie Johnson reported for National Public Radio,

Holder already is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama Cabinet and currently ranks as the fourth-longest tenured AG in history. Hundreds of employees waited in lines, stacked three rows deep, in early February 2009 to witness his return to the Justice Department, where he previously worked as a young corruption prosecutor and as deputy attorney general – the second in command – during the Clinton administration. […]

Holder most wants to be remembered for his record on civil rights: refusing to defend a law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman; suing North Carolina and Texas over voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minorities and the elderly; launching 20 investigations of abuses by local police departments; and using his bully pulpit to lobby Congress to reduce prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Many of those sentences disproportionately hurt minority communities.

Republicans in Congress have long clashed with Holder over many issues, notably the “Fast and Furious” gun trafficking scandal and Holder’s original plan to prosecute the alleged plotters in the 9/11 attacks in federal court in New York City. (Eventually those cases were moved to military courts.)

I had very high hopes for Holder when Obama appointed him, and while he’s far from the worst in the current cabinet, he’s probably the most disappointing from my perspective. As Eric Posner explains well here, “Holder’s Justice Department has helped suppress civil liberties that interfere with what the Bush administration called the ‘war on terror,’ the currently nameless global operation to confront Islamic terrorism wherever it appears.” Although Holder doesn’t explicitly condone torture, the Department of Justice failed to prosecute CIA officials involved in torturing suspects.

Any comments about Holder’s legacy are welcome in this thread. I’ve enclosed below Senator Chuck Grassley’s comment on the attorney general’s plans to step down, and will update this post as needed with other Iowa reaction to the news.

P.S.-Although an early 2009 speech by Holder is now considered a “stumble” or gaffe, there was some truth in his observation, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Here’s your mid-week open thread, Bleeding Heartland readers: all topics welcome.

I have been thinking about the latest Iowa Supreme Court decision a lot today. A year ago, I would have sworn that as long as Terry Branstad remains governor, there’s nothing anyone can do for the thousands of ex-felons permanently disenfranchised in this state. Branstad couldn’t wait to sign that executive order as soon as he was back in office. Under the convoluted procedure he created, only a small fraction of 1 percent of those who have completed their prison terms have managed to regain their voting rights.

The day State Senator Jack Hatch declared his candidacy for governor, I could never have imagined the unlikely chain of events that followed. First, arch-rivals Tony Bisignano and Ned Chiodo set their sights on Hatch’s Iowa Senate seat. Then, Bisignano was caught driving drunk again. Then, Chiodo not only challenged Bisignano’s right to seek office but continued to pursue his case in court after losing before a panel of top state officials. (In contrast, the voter who challenged State Senator Joe Seng’s registration as a candidate in IA-02 two years ago dropped his effort after the same panel determined Seng had qualified for the primary ballot.)

Then, Chiodo refused to take the Polk County District Court’s no for an answer. Still I had no clue where all this was going–until yesterday, when three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices determined that not all felonies should be considered “infamous crimes,” which justify stripping Iowans of their rights as electors. Very soon, one or more non-violent felons are likely to file suit, demanding that their rights be restored. Depending on where Justice Brent Appel comes down on the issue (he recused himself from the Chiodo/Bisignano case), the Iowa Supreme Court may eventually declare unconstitutional the 1994 law defining “infamous crimes” as felonies.

We don’t know whether a majority on the court will take this stance. As Ryan Koopmans points out, the Chiodo ruling came out incredibly quickly. One or more of the justices may change his mind after reflecting on the issues for a while. Still, the potential for a major advance in Iowa voting rights is mind-blowing.