A three-way Democratic primary is assured in Iowa Senate district 17, as the Iowa Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has affirmed a district court ruling on Tony Bisignano’s eligibility to run for office. Rival candidate Ned Chiodo filed a lawsuit last month, saying Bisignano’s recent aggravated misdemeanor conviction for second-offense OWI should be considered an “infamous crime.” The Iowa Constitution disqualifies citizens convicted of “infamous crimes” from exercising the privileges of “electors.”

Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Justices Daryl Hecht and Bruce Zager. Overturning Iowa Supreme Court precedents set in 1916 and 1957, the court ruled that “infamous crimes” cannot be interpreted to mean any crime punishable by a prison sentence, including aggravated misdemeanors. On the other hand, the court did not simply accept the 1994 law defining “infamous crimes” as felonies. Citing historical references including an 1839 Iowa territorial statute, the plurality argues that not all felonies are “infamous,” and that the words had different meanings at the time the Iowa Constitution was adopted in the 1850s. It did not go on to define which felonies should be considered infamous crimes in the present context.

Justice Edward Mansfield wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas Waterman. The concurrence agrees that Bisignano retains his rights as an elector, because aggravated misdemeanors cannot be considered “infamous crimes.” However, Mansfield would have accepted the bright-line definition from the 1994 state law, equating felonies with “infamous crimes.” He warned that the plurality opinion would serve as a “welcome mat” for future litigation from felons claiming that they should be entitled to vote, because their convictions were not for “infamous crimes.” On balance, I agree most with Mansfield’s opinion.

Justice David Wiggins dissented, arguing that the court should not have rewritten “nearly one hundred years of caselaw.” He would have found Bisignano ineligible to run for office under the longstanding precedent that “infamous crime” means any crime punishable by a prison sentence. Wiggins’ dissenting opinion does not accept the 1994 law which defined “infamous crimes” as felonies, because interpreting the state Constitution is a job for the Iowa Supreme Court, not the state legislature.

Justice Brent Appel recused himself from this case.

The Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on Chiodo’s separate claim that Attorney General Tom Miller should have recused himself from the panel that allowed Bisignano to remain on the ballot. Chiodo argued that Miller had a conflict of interest, because one of his employees, Assistant Attorney General Nathan Blake, is also seeking the Democratic nomination in Senate district 17.

You can read the Iowa Supreme Court’s three opinions in this case here (pdf). After the jump I’ve enclosed summaries and excerpts from each opinion. I also included a statement from Bisignano hailing the ruling and announcing several more labor union endorsements.

One thing’s for sure: today’s ruling won’t be the last attempt by the Iowa Supreme Court to clarify the definition of “infamous crimes.”

UPDATE: Added Nathan Blake’s comment below. SECOND UPDATE: Added more thoughts about the implications of this case.

A growing proportion of Iowans have chosen to vote early during the last few election cycles. During the 2012 presidential election, 43.2 percent of Iowans who participated cast early ballots. In yesterday’s Des Moines Register, Jason Noble highlighted a problem that has and will continue to nullify the votes of some of them: missing postmarks on ballots that arrive after the general election. Post offices do not always postmark envelopes without a stamp. That’s not a problem when county auditors receive mailed absentee ballots before election day, but current Iowa rules instruct auditors to throw out ballots that arrive late, unless a postmark proves they were mailed on or before the day before the election.

Iowa lawmakers discussed several ideas for addressing the problem, but lack of consensus led them to drop the issue this year. After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt from Noble’s piece.

As things stand, Iowans who plan to vote early either in the 2014 primary or general elections can do a few things to make sure their votes count:

1. Mail in your absentee ballot well before election day, to ensure that it arrives on time.

2. Hand-deliver your absentee ballot to your county auditor’s office.

3. Place a stamp on your absentee ballot envelope, so that the post office will have to put a postmark on it.

4. Vote early in person, either at the county auditor’s office or (for the general election) at a satellite location. I prefer this option, because I know for sure that my ballot got to the right place on time. If you take this route, I recommend reviewing a sample ballot online first, so that you have time to research ballot initiatives and candidates for more obscure offices.  

Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s crusade to stop voter fraud in Iowa has uncovered a couple dozen allegedly ineligible voters who registered (not all of whom voted). The only person prosecuted for fraud was acquitted in less than an hour. I would bet that several people who pleaded guilty to lesser charges to avoid the risk of a trial would have been acquitted as well, since no evidence suggests they knew they weren’t entitled to vote.

Meanwhile, via John Deeth I see that Schultz has now admitted that twelve Iowans had their ballots improperly thrown out during the 2012 presidential election, because their names wrongly appeared on lists of ineligible felons. I’m surprised the number isn’t substantially higher than twelve, since we already knew that three voters in Cerro Gordo County alone were deprived of their constitutional rights. UPDATE: No one will ever know how many more Iowans did not attempt to register or cast a ballot because of confusion over their eligibility.

Schultz is creating a task force to resolve inaccuracies in the I-Voters felons file and has ordered county auditors “to work with local law enforcement, county attorneys and county clerks of court to make sure the felon status information is accurate” before special precinct boards decide whether to count provisional ballots cast by voters who appeared on the felon’s list. I’m so naive that I assumed local officials were already conducting those checks before throwing out people’s votes.

Schultz was not ashamed by a jury’s rapid-fire acquittal of a southeast Iowa woman, saying she won’t be able to “cancel out the vote of anyone in the future.” At the very least, he owes a public and abject apology to the Iowans whose votes were tossed because of a flawed procedure for screening out felons. He may also end up having to return federal funds used for his criminal investigations–or maybe his successor will be left to clean up that mess. Schultz opted to run for Congress in Iowa’s third district rather than seek a second term as secretary of state.

On behalf of Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the Iowa Attorney General’s office has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to review last month’s District Court decision invalidating a proposed rule that has been one of Schultz’s priorities. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the rule would allow the Secretary of State’s Office to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status against a federal database. Registered voters suspected of not being citizens would be informed by mail. Those who cannot prove their citizenship or do not respond within 60 days would be removed from the voter rolls.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg determined that Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated the rule. His decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens did not address a separate legal question: whether Schultz’s rule violated the right to vote.

If the Iowa Supreme Court overturns last month’s decision, that would mean only that the Secretary of State had the authority to establish the new rule in the absence of legislative action. Further litigation would determine whether the procedure Schultz envisioned could intimidate eligible voters or deprive them of their rights.

I expect the Iowa Supreme Court to uphold the District Court ruling. Regardless, the appeal may boost Schultz’s standing with Republican primary voters in the third Congressional district. They will love this part of yesterday’s press release from the Secretary of State’s Office:

“I have fought for integrity and voter’s rights.  We can’t allow non-citizens to cancel out the vote of Iowans, but at the same time, anyone accused deserves due process.  My rule gives voters more due process and protects the integrity of the vote,” Schultz said.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. Schultz’s use of the phrase “due process” suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of his role. The Secretary of State is an administrator, not a law enforcement official.  

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

Ned Chiodo’s challenge to Tony Bisignano’s eligibility to run for Iowa Senate district 17 has brought new attention to some legal confusion over which crimes can cause Iowans to lose their voting rights. The Iowa Constitution does not specify which “infamous crimes” should disqualify citizens from voting or holding public office. Chiodo’s attorney cites case law from the Iowa Supreme Court suggesting that aggravated misdemeanors as well as felonies can be considered “infamous crimes.” Yet a law passed in 1994 defined “infamous crimes” as state or federal felonies.

State Representative Mary Wolfe, an Iowa House Democrat who is also a criminal defense attorney, just reposted a piece she wrote in 2012, explaining why aggravated misdemeanor convictions do not disqualify voters. (I recommend clicking through to read her whole analysis.) Wolfe notes with dismay the “complete and total disconnect between Iowa’s Governor and Secretary of State on such a straightforward, yes or no issue.” Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s website correctly indicates that convicted felons whose rights have not been restored may not register to vote. However, Governor Terry Branstad’s website states that “infamous crimes” may include aggravated misdemeanors and any crime that “may be punishable” by more than one year in prison. That could include a long list of offenses, including the second Operating While Intoxicated charge to which Bisignano pled guilty earlier this year.

At this writing, Branstad’s website still contains that misinformation about some aggravated misdemeanors leading to the loss of voting rights, even though Branstad himself signed the 1994 law defining “infamous crimes” as felonies. Speaking to reporters a few weeks ago in defense of his policy permanently disenfranchising all but a handful of ex-felons, the governor equated “infamous crimes” with felonies.

Because Chiodo plans to take his case to court, a Polk County District judge (and perhaps eventually the full Iowa Supreme Court) will settle any questions over whether Iowa’s 1994 law supersedes previous court rulings on this issue.  

Attorney General Tom Miller, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, and State Auditor Mary Mosiman decided unanimously that Tony Bisignano may run in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa Senate district 17 despite a recent drunk driving charge. Democratic rival Ned Chiodo had challenged Bisignano’s candidacy, saying a second-offense OWI is an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by a prison sentence. Therefore, “long-established case law from the Iowa Supreme Court” place this charge among the “infamous crimes” that render citizens ineligible to vote or hold office under the Iowa Constitution. You can read the full text of Chiodo’s challenge here (pdf).

Attorneys representing both sides presented their case to the three-member panel on Wednesday. Tipping his hand, Miller shared concerns expressed by Bisignano’s lawyer that thousands of Iowans could lose their voting rights if Chiodo’s challenge were upheld. In fact, Miller estimated that 35,000 to 50,000 people could become ineligible to vote under that standard.

Today Chiodo’s attorney confirmed plans to appeal in Polk County District Court. The case may eventually reach the Iowa Supreme Court, as language in the state constitution and a 1994 law are in conflict. I don’t see how the matter could be resolved before the June 3 primary, let alone before the Polk County Auditor’s office will have to print primary ballots.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Bisignano’s campaign. The winner of the Democratic primary is virtually guaranteed to succeed Jack Hatch in Iowa Senate district 17. Republicans do not even have a candidate running in this heavily Democratic area of Des Moines.

I’m disappointed that Ned Chiodo is willing to sacrifice the voting rights of thousands of people in order to advance his political career. By the same token, I would prefer not to elect a repeat drunk driver to the legislature. Whether or not Bisignano’s offense meets the legal definition of an “infamous crime,” his behavior posed a danger to himself and others. If I lived in Senate district 17 I would vote for new blood in the Democratic caucus: Nathan Blake. The official announcement of his candidacy is at the end of this post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s time for an update on the legal conflict between Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and voter rights advocates over Schultz’s efforts to remove “potential non-citizen registrants” from Iowa voter rolls. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa are suing to block the rule and won an important court victory yesterday. Follow me after the jump for background and details.

Anyone else following the Virginia attorney general election saga? With some provisional ballots still to be counted, Democrat Mark Herring leads Republican Mark Obenshain by just 117 votes out of more than 2 million cast last Tuesday. Michael McDonald and Dave Wasserman have been posting frequent updates on the situation. No matter who holds a slight lead when the official canvass concludes, there will certainly be a recount. But as Brad Friedman points out,

Unfortunately, a “recount” in Virginia is much less than it might appear. Most of the state’s votes are cast on 100% unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems, on which it is impossible after an election to know if any vote cast on them actually reflects the intent of any voter. Those votes will not be able to be “recounted” at all. Rather, according to § 24.2-802 (D) of the Code of Virginia [PDF], a “recount” of DRE votes consists of little more than checking the results tapes printed out by the machines at the end of Election Night once again. […]

So there is no way to know if any of the DRE votes, the majority of those cast, are actually accurate, as per any voter.

Very close elections for state legislative seats or local offices are routine in Iowa, and we could easily have a statewide contest decided by a margin as narrow as the Herring/Obenshain race. But at least Iowa would be able to recount the ballots cast, because in 2008, our state legislature approved and Governor Chet Culver signed a law requiring paper ballots to be used in all Iowa counties. Before that law passed, some counties had already invested in touchscreen machines, but Secretary of State Mike Mauro strongly lobbied for paper ballots everywhere in the state. The governor initially favored a plan that would have involved retrofitting rather than replacing touchscreen voting machines. But he relented, and Senate File 2347 eventually passed by 47 votes to 1 in the Iowa Senate and 92 votes to 6 in the Iowa House.

Thanks to the advocates and all the Iowa elected officials who made sure the nightmare unfolding in Virginia would never happen here.

P.S. – We could do more to improve our system of post-election audits.

State Senator Tom Courtney has asked newly appointed Iowa State Auditor Mary Mosiman to conduct “a special audit of the use of HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funds by Secretary of State Matt Schultz.” Courtney has been a leading critic of Schultz’s policies to combat alleged voter fraud. He previously asked State Auditor David Vaudt and the federal Office of Inspector General to look into Schultz’s use of HAVA funds to pay for criminal investigations. Courtney points out that federal funding is intended for “educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights and voting technology.”

An Iowa Senate press release containing background on Courtney’s request is after the jump, along with the full text of Courtney’s letter to Mosiman. She would presumably have to assign a different staff member of the Auditor’s office to conduct any inquiry, since she’s worked for Schultz for more than two years, running the Secretary of State’s Office elections division. Mosiman has publicly defended Schultz’s policies on alleged voter fraud, including photo ID requirements that most Iowa county auditors oppose.

The criminal investigations have so far uncovered a few allegedly improper voter registrations by ex-felons and a few instances of non-citizens allegedly registering to vote or casting ballots in local or state elections. To my knowledge, those charges have not led to any convictions yet. Three cases of alleged wrongful voting by non-citizens were dropped in March because the investigating DCI agent was called up for active military duty.

March 29, 2013 

The ACLU of Iowa and Iowa LULAC today restarted their lawsuit to stop the Secretary of State from an unreliable process to remove registered voters if they cannot prove their U.S. citizenship within a limited time.

The ACLU of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed papers in Polk County District court today, renewing their lawsuit against two rules filed by the Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz that the groups say wrongly restrict voting by qualified Iowans.

One rule would have allowed unverified challenges to another voter’s qualifications. The Secretary of State eventually voluntarily withdrew that rule. The other rule, which took effect yesterday, allows the Secretary of State to run Iowa’s registered voters through numerous federal databases to attempt to generate a list of non-citizens.

The ACLU and LULAC say that the Secretary of State was never authorized by the Iowa legislature to put his Voter Removal Rule forward, and that it will erroneously deprive qualified citizens in Iowa of their right to vote. The ACLU and LULAC cite problems with running the registered voter lists through the federal SAVE system, as well as a lack of procedural checks to protect voters once they are identified.

http://www.aclu-ia.org/2013/03/29/aclu-of-iowa-restarts-its-voter-suppression-lawsuit-against-the-iowa-secretary-of-state/

<!–EndFragment–>

President Obama wants to cut voting time so long lines are eliminated, but Iowa's Peter Cownie wants to lengthen voting time by eliminating one short cut—no straight ticket ballots would be allowed.

President Barack Obama delivers another State of the Union address tonight, and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is set to give the Republican response. I will miss most of the president’s speech but plan to watch the replay later and will update this post with highlights. Meanwhile, feel free to comment on any topics raised during the speeches in this thread.

UPDATE: Highlights from the speeches and reaction from the Iowans in Congress are after the jump.

I find it depressing that when I came home to catch up on the news, the blogosphere and twitterverse were obsessing over Rubio taking a drink of water during his remarks. So sue him, he’s not the most camera-savvy politician in Washington (yet). Who cares?

Iowa's voting laws made news last week when the Des Moines Register reminded us of who cannot vote here. Iowa has become one of the most difficult places to vote for felons.

It's not clear to me why everyone who is 18 years old cannot vote, criminal record, even presence in jail notwithstanding. Is this a democracy or not?

Restrictions on voting rights adopted in 14 states so far in 2011 “could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012,” according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

On his first day back in office, Governor Terry Branstad rescinded Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2005 executive order on felon voting rights as well as Governor Chet Culver’s 2010 order on project labor agreements. By prohibiting project labor agreements on public works projects involving state funds (executive order 69), Branstad will drive down wages and help contractors that don’t hire unionized workers.

Branstad defended his voting rights directive (executive order 70) as a way to protect crime victims while recouping more fines and court costs. However, the main impact will be to shrink the Iowa electorate. Follow me after the jump for more background and analysis.  

Candidate Terry Branstad promised to make it harder for some people to vote. He wants to turn back the clock, reversing a national trend of thirteen years.

In the early days of the USA only property owners could vote. A hundred years later all barriers to voting were gone except the one that kept women away from the polls. Then new barriers were built against Blacks and felons, notably poll taxes and other tests that were unfairly applied.

Branstad thinks it terrible that everyone might be able to vote: “All of the sudden you're just going to make 50,000 people eligible to vote,” he fretted. Imagine that!  
(continues after the jump)

The Republican Party of Iowa held its state convention today, but it wasn’t the unity-fest Terry Branstad was hoping for.

Representative Steve King nominated Kim Reynolds for lieutenant governor, and Reynolds emphasized socially conservative stands in her speech to the convention. Former gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts declined efforts to nominate him for lieutenant governor, endorsing the Branstad/Reynolds ticket.

State Representative Dwayne Alons (not the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer) nominated Bob Vander Plaats for lieutenant governor, saying, “This nomination is not about one person, one man or one individual. I believe I am speaking for a grassroots effort that has been going on since the beginning of Bob’s campaign.” Vander Plaats took up the challenge:

“I fully understand and respect Gov. Branstad’s ability to recommend to [the delegates] who he wants as his lieutenant governor,” Vander Plaats said in an address to the Republican Party of Iowa Convention. “But it would be hypocritical of me to spend more than a year championing government by the people, of the people and for the people and then ignore the will of the people.”

The final delegate vote was 749 for Reynolds, 579 for Vander Plaats. I’m surprised Reynolds only managed about 56 percent of the delegate votes. I expected her to do better, especially after State Rep Kent Sorenson endorsed Reynolds for lieutenant governor last night. Sorenson thinks Chuck Grassley is too moderate and was such a passionate supporter of Vander Plaats for governor that he vowed in January never to vote for Branstad under any circumstances. As far as I know, Sorenson still hasn’t officially endorsed Branstad for governor, but I imagine he will have to do so if he doesn’t want to lose moderate Republican support in his campaign for Iowa Senate district 37 this fall. I stand by my prediction that Vander Plaats won’t run for governor as an independent.

Branstad made a lot of promises in his speech to Republican delegates. For instance, he again said he’ll veto any budget that spends more than 99 percent of projected state revenues. When will Branstad show Iowans how he would have balanced the current-year budget without using any money from federal stimulus funds or the state reserves?

Branstad promised to reverse former Governor Tom Vilsack’s executive order allowing convicted felons to get their voting rights back, although this liveblog suggests he wrongly attributed that executive order to current Governor Chet Culver. Putting more restrictions on voting rights would help Iowa Republicans, in part because of the enormous racial disparity in Iowa prisons. I would like more details on whether Branstad would let any felons apply for their voting rights. If his running mate deserved the chance to stay in public life after two drunk driving citations, then surely others who have served their time should have the chance to exercise their voting rights.

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend. Anyone spent time at the downtown art festival? I hope to swing by tomorrow after I hit the art show at the fairgrounds.

UPDATE: Your unintentional comedy of the day comes from The Iowa Republican blog’s top story for Monday, titled, “A Stronger Republican Party Emerges From Contentious Convention”. Here’s the lead paragraph by Craig Robinson:

Don’t believe what you are reading in the newspaper or what you are seeing on the local news. The Republican Party in Iowa isn’t divided. It’s not coming off of a contentious convention. It matured and now is poised to make huge gains in November.

But Craig, you just described the convention as “contentious” in your own headline. How anyone  would try to spin Saturday’s events as the sign of a party not divided is completely beyond me.

Branstad had some tough words for Vander Plaats on Monday: “Remember that the person who opposed [Reynolds] for the nomination has been running here for 10 years, has probably spoken to everyone in that room 10 times,” Branstad said. “We took the risk of going to the most conservative base of our party, and we won it fair and square, just like I won the primary fair and square.”

The head of Mike Huckabee’s HUCK PAC, Hogan Gidley, told the Washington Post, “It would be disrespectful to Mr. Vander Plaats and to many of Governor Huckabee’s friends and supporters in Iowa if he were to endorse Governor Branstad without Mr. Vander Plaat’s [sic] having already done so.”

Meanwhile, the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman wins the prize for headline of the week: “Branstad Handles the Vander Pout.”

Thanks to the Iowa Voters blog, I learned about a transparency project in a California county that uncovered errors made by machines counting paper ballots in the recent election. Click here for more detail on the program and the errors it revealed.

This story provides further evidence that we need verified voting across the country. Mandatory manual audits of voter-verified paper records would allay fears about malfunctions or tampering with optical scanners.

It’s great that Iowa eliminated touchscreen voting machines last year, but we also need to make sure machines are counting paper ballots accurately. I hope Secretary of State Mike Mauro will work toward this goal.

I recommend that you check out the Verified Voting site to learn more about this issue. Also, it’s not too late to urge Barack Obama to support verified voting at the federal level.

By now you have surely read about Bernard Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme. For background, here’s a collection of New York Times articles on the scandal.

The Securities Exchange Commission is conducting an internal investigation to find out why Madoff’s criminal enterprise went undetected for so long. It’s already obvious that this was a massive regulatory failure.

The SEC was warned about Madoff:

The SEC had the authority to investigate Madoff’s investment business, which managed billions of dollars for wealthy investors and philanthropies. Financial analysts raised concerns about Madoff’s practices repeatedly over the past decade, including a 1999 letter to the SEC that accused Madoff of running a Ponzi scheme. But the agency did not conduct even a routine examination of the investment business until last week.

No one knows yet how many people were involved in helping Madoff conceal his fraud. And while Madoff’s operation was particularly massive, no one knows how many other fraudulent investment firms are out there, because the SEC lacks the resources to enforce compliance with financial securities laws.

Those who had invested with Madoff have lost the entire value of their accounts, and they are not the only victims of his crimes. In fact, Madoff may have indirectly harmed more victims than any other white-collar criminal in history. His clients included many non-profit organizations and charitable foundations, some of which have already ceased operations. Numerous Jewish non-profits have been hit hard, but the fallout will extend far beyond the Jewish community. The Picower Foundation alone gave out tens of millions of dollars in grants every year. Within months, the education, human rights and arts non-profits that relied on those funds are likely to be in financial crisis.

The JEHT Foundation was much smaller than the Picower Foundation but “was a leading supporter of civil rights causes, including groups working to expand voting rights in the South.” Its outgoing president noted when announcing plans to shut down operations that

The issues the Foundation addressed received very limited philanthropic support and the loss of the foundation’s funding and leadership will cause significant pain and disruption of the work for many dedicated people and organizations. The Foundation’s programs have met with significant success in recent years – promoting change in these critical areas in partnership with government and the non-profit sector. Hopefully others will look closely at this work and consider supporting it going forward.

We can hope that others will step in to support the worthy causes whose funders were defrauded by Madoff, but that is extremely unlikely. Just about every grant-making foundation has suffered a significant decline in assets this year because of the stock market’s slide. Individuals of great wealth have also seen their net worth shrink. Non-profit organizations were already bracing for a difficult fundraising year in 2009. The Madoff scandal makes it even more likely that many non-profits will not survive this downturn.

Consider them casualties of “small government” at the SEC, and remember what happened to them the next time conservatives whine about big, bad regulators.  

The Iowa Independent blog unveiled a new look this week. Check it out if you haven’t already. Some recent posts include:

This story about a new law that will make it harder to challenge a voter’s qualifications to cast a ballot on election day.

This piece in which Ed Fallon and Lynn Heuss reflect on Fallon’s campaign against Leonard Boswell. Heuss correctly notes that budgeting was one of the biggest mistakes the campaign made. They hired so many staffers early in the year that when fundraising failed to meet expectations, they were unable to purchase any paid media before the June 3 primary.

This story about independent Congressional candidate William Meyers launching a new website against Iowa’s smoking ban.

This piece on a former Agriprocessors employee pleading guilty to criminal charges. I haven’t written much about the Agriprocessors scandal, and the main reason is that Iowa Independent has done such a good job of staying on top of this story.

It’s a continuing disgrace that our enforcement of immigration laws punishes workers and their families but rarely if ever punishes corporations and executives who oversee illegal hiring practices (not to mention other labor and safety violations at Agriprocessors).

(Side note: if you want to be shocked and horrified, read this New York Times story about what happened after a pregnant illegal immigrant was pulled over for a routine traffic violation in Nashville.)  

Iowa Voters has an important post up reminding us that Iowans can register to vote right at the polling place on primary day.

If you know people who are not planning to vote this Tuesday because they are not registered, or have moved since the last time they voted or caucused, be sure to let them know that they can still participate in the primaries. Iowa Voter writes:

These late registrations have tougher rules because you must prove your identity and residence in the precinct. Use your driver’s license or other government-issued photo id card. If the card shows an incorrect address, you can use other documents to establish your address: your lease, utility bill, bank statement, government document, or paycheck that shows your address.

Use this information to help get out the vote for the candidate of your choice.

Click the link to read how Iowans can also register on election day by having an already registered voter in the precinct vouch for them. I wouldn’t gamble on every polling place worker understanding this aspect of the law, though.

The Des Moines Register editorial board must have been reading my mind when they published another editorial calling on legislators to repeal Iowa’s English-only law.

As I’ve written, Democrats who cut the deal to approve that law in 2002 assured us that it was a symbolic measure, and that plenty of exceptions were written into the law.

Last month a judge in Polk County ordered the Secretary of State’s office to stop providing voter information in languages other than English. Secretary of State Mike Mauro has decided not to appeal that ruling.

Now Republicans are bent out of shape because the Iowa Department of Transportation published a public notice in Spanish as well as English:

Iowa Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, a Sioux City Republican, objected Thursday after he read a DOT public meeting notice in the Sioux City Journal printed in Spanish and English. It advised residents of a public hearing to discuss proposed improvements on Interstate Highway 29.

“We have spent an entire legislative session listening to the Department of Transportation state that they do not have the money they need for Iowa’s infrastructure,” Wieck said. “While I believe that a strong infrastructure is important, I am concerned with this type of frivolous spending. …

“Instead of clamoring for more money from the taxpayers of this state, maybe we should look at our bloated bureaucracy and trim the fat.”

What a joke. Who is harmed by a DOT public meeting notice in multiple languages? How much money would they save by printing all public meeting notices in English only–a few thousand dollars?

A representative of the DOT said they have printed public meeting notices in other languages as well as English for years. The Iowa Attorney General’s office is currently reviewing whether this practice can continue despite the law making English the official state language.

Will any Democrat have the courage to introduce a bill to repeal this law? It’s not as if adopting the law has prevented Republicans from scoring political points on this issue. As long as the law stands, Republicans will keep scouring public documents for any sign of Spanish or other languages so they can demagogue.

This is not about illegal immigration. This is about preventing government from effectively serving Iowa residents whose native language is not English. It’s mean-spirited and unwelcoming, and I would like to see more leadership on this issue from our elected Democrats during the 2009 legislative session.

I don’t plan to ever move again, if I can help it, but we live in a mobile society, and many voters have moved since the last election.

John Deeth wrote an important piece for his blog and for Iowa Independent:

A mailing this week from the Secretary of State’s office could be a nice convenience to recently moved voters, or a headache at the polls. Voters who think they’re updating their address may in fact be canceling their registration.

If you’ve moved to a different county in Iowa and you’ve filled out an official change of address card, you have canceled your registration in your old county but have not registered in your new county until you fill out a separate voter registration form.

Iowa now has same-day voter registration, so you could register at your new address on election day, but to do that you have to bring identification and proof of your new address to the polling place.

Deeth has more details in his post. The bottom line is, make sure you are registered to vote at your new address, or make sure you bring ID and proof of address with you on election day.

Back in 2002, Steve King hadn’t yet become an embarrassment on the national stage; he was merely a crusader for intolerance in the Republican-controlled Iowa legislature. Tom Vilsack was a first-term governor nervously eyeing a midterm re-election campaign under the very popular President George W. Bush.

Seems like a long time ago, doesn’t it?

Anyway, King was obsessed with passing a law declaring English the official language of Iowa. Didn’t you know how difficult it had become for Iowans to express themselves without official acknowledgment of English’s status?

Vilsack vetoed one version of the bill, then signed the rewritten bill that came to his desk. Disappointed liberals were assured that Vilsack had made the smart play by taking the issue off the table for the November election. Besides, the new bill contained all kinds of exceptions, so it would be little more than a symbolic measure.

Well, this week a judge in Polk County “ordered Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro to stop using languages other than English in the state’s official voter registration forms”, the Des Moines Register’s William Petroski reported. (If you want to read the ruling, click here.)

In 2006 King, by then a U.S. Representative in Iowa’s fifth district, complained that then-Secretary of State Chet Culver had put voting information in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian and Vietnamese as well as English on the secretary of state’s website.

Attorney General Tom Miller had determined such action was acceptable because the official English law allowed for “any language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, or the Constitution of the state of Iowa.”

King filed suit last year against Culver and Mike Mauro, who was elected secretary of state in 2006.  District Judge Douglas Staskal concluded that voter registration forms in languages other than English are against the law, and voided the “improper exercise of agency power.”

Miller, like Culver and Mauro a Democrat, may appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court:

“Our view is that although the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act requires all official forms to be in English, it does not prohibit government officials from providing materials in other languages as well,” Miller said. “We argued that position to the District Court. This principle can be particularly important in the area of voting rights of citizens.”

If this ruling is upheld, it will hamper efforts to register voters whose native language is not English.

I’m with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, which wrote on Saturday that “it’s time for Iowa lawmakers to repeal this embarrassing law.”

They should do so because the law is mean-spirited and sends an anti-immigrant message. They should do so because it makes Iowa seem xenophobic. They should do so because it’s unnecessary when studies show today’s immigrants are learning English as quickly as their predecessors.

And to lawmakers who may have thought the law was toothless because it included exemptions, Judge Staskal’s ruling tells them otherwise. The law applies to “official action” from government, which is broadly defined. It could have a “chilling effect on speech by causing government employees to refrain from non-English communication all together,” he wrote.

There is still time for legislators to repeal the official English law this session.

Don’t let the ghost of Steve King constrain voting rights in the upcoming presidential election.

In his column for the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, David Yepsen repeated assertions he made on his blog not long ago, implying that the Obama campaign is somehow not playing fair because they are encouraging students at Iowa colleges to return to campus for the January 3 caucuses.

As I’ve written before, the right of students at Iowa colleges to caucus is well-established.

Mike Connery goes into more detail about why Yepsen is wrong here. He notes that several rival campaigns have jumped at the chance to imply Obama is cheating in Iowa. I am proud that the Edwards campaign is NOT among those.

The Iowa caucuses should never have been scheduled so early, while colleges are on winter break. I encourage all of the campaigns to identify their student supporters. Why shouldn’t students come back to their campuses for caucus night?

I’m disappointed that the Register would seem to endorse the idea that it is illegitimate for students enrolled at Iowa colleges to caucus.