Tag: Iowa

Yesterday Taniel at the Campaign Diaries blog posted about 68 Democratic-held U.S. House seats that could potentially be competitive in 2010. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on that list.

IA-03 did not make Stuart Rothenberg’s list of competitive House seats for 2010 either.

The National Republican Congressional Committee released a list of 51 targeted Democratic-held House districts in January. Lo and behold, IA-03 is not on that list either.  

I realize that Boswell only won the district with 56.3 percent of the vote in 2008, but I don’t hear any chatter from Iowa Republicans about recruiting a candidate to run against him. The focus is on the governor’s race and the Iowa House.

I bring this up because the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has kept Boswell on its list of “Frontline Democrats” for 2010. John Deeth recently noticed that Boswell is “by far the senior member” of the 41 Frontline candidates. Almost all of them were first elected to Congress in 2006 or 2008. The others with more terms under their belt represent districts significantly more conservative than IA-03 with its partisan voter index of D+1.

For Deeth, this is yet another sign that IA-03 deserves better than Boswell. I view it as a sign that the DCCC is wrong. Boswell definitely needed to be in the Frontline program the first five times he ran for re-election, but he was a safe six-term incumbent in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t be a safe seven-term incumbent in 2010.

According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, Iowa’s third district had about 433,000 registered voters as of May 1, 2009. Of those, about 399,000 were “active voters.” More than 156,000 of the active voters in IA-03 are registered Democrats. Only about 118,000 are registered Republicans, and about 124,000 are registered no-party voters.

Why should you care if the DCCC erroneously classifies Boswell as vulnerable? Frontline Democrats are exempt from paying DCCC dues, which are used to support Democrats in competitive races across the country.

Look, I would still prefer to elect a new Democrat to IA-03 in order to avoid a potential matchup of Boswell and Tom Latham in 2012. But since Boswell has no plans to retire, let him pay his DCCC dues just like every other House incumbent whose seat is not threatened next year.  

On a related note, Deeth recently cited Progressive Punch lifetime ratings as an argument for replacing Boswell. It’s worth noting that Boswell’s voting record in the current Congress is much better than his lifetime Progressive Punch score suggests. (For instance, he was not among the Blue Dogs who voted against President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.) Yes, IA-03 should be represented by a more progressive Democrat than Boswell, but I’m cutting him slack as long as he’s not casting egregious votes in the current Congress.  

I see no reason to keep him in the Frontline program, though. We will genuinely be playing defense in dozens of House districts next year. Until there is some sign that Republicans are making a serious play for IA-03, Boswell should pay his DCCC dues.

Meant to cross-post this from Bleeding Heartland a few days ago, but better late than never.

I’ve argued this year that Iowa Governor Chet Culver is in decent shape going into the 2010 re-election campaign for various reasons. Iowans love to re-elect incumbents, and Culver’s poll numbers, while not spectacular, have mostly been above the danger zone for sitting governors.

Survey USA recently released new polling numbers for Iowa, and it wasn’t good news for Culver. Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval was at a multi-year low in the same poll.

Links, numbers and some analysis are after the jump.

SUSA found Culver’s approval rating at 42 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. In February and March, SUSA found that 46 percent of Iowans approved of Culver’s performance as governor.

Culver’s approval number isn’t too bad compared to that of some other governors, but if you look at the graph of SUSA’s numbers for Culver since he took office, you’ll see that 42 percent is the lowest approval number SUSA has ever recorded for him.

Since Culver took office in January 2007, his approval has been in the 50s most of the time. He dipped into “net negative territory” (with disapproval exceeding approval) from February through April 2008, then bounced back above 50 percent for the rest of last year. When I first saw the graph, I thought maybe Culver got a bump during last summer’s floods, but his approval rating was already noticeably higher in May 2008.

The trendlines for Culver got me wondering whether the governor’s difficult working relationship with the Democrats who run the Iowa House and Senate is at the heart of his poor numbers in February through April of 2008 and 2009. The Iowa legislature usually meets only from early January through some time in April. The most recent SUSA poll was in the field on April 24 through 26, which coincided with the final marathon days of the 2009 legislative session.

If a “legislature effect” is dragging Culver’s numbers down, add that to the list of reasons the governor and statehouse leaders need to figure out a way to cooperate more effectively during the 2010 session.

Of course, we’re also in the middle of an economic recession, which has been the focus of massive media coverage since the start of the year. In the coming months, Culver’s I-JOBS program will lead to lots of new spending on infrastructure projects. It will be interesting to see whether his approval goes up.

It’s also possible that Culver’s approval slipped a little in April because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v. Brien. The Republican Party of Iowa trumpeted this poll as a sign the public disagrees with Culver on labor unions, taxes, spending and gay marriage.

It’s worth noting that SUSA’s numbers on Culver run a bit low compared to other pollsters. For instance, in late March SUSA had Culver at 46 percent approval while Selzer and Associates put that figure at 55 percent, and the Republican firm Hill Research measured his approval at 52 percent. Nevertheless, the SUSA numbers and trendlines bear watching. If other polls also put Culver’s approval in the low 40s, I would tend to agree with Bleeding Heartland user American007 that he looks vulnerable,with the caveat that the GOP would have to nominate someone other than Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King or Bob Vander Plaats, a religious conservative businessman who was Mike Huckabee’s Iowa chairman during the presidential campaign.

Grassley’s latest approval number, according to SUSA, is 59 percent, with 32 percent disapproving. That’s well out of the danger zone for an incumbent, but low for Grassley, who was at 71, 71 and 68 in SUSA’s polls for January through March. In fact, SUSA has only found Grassley’s approval below 60 once in the past four years of polling.

My hunch is that Grassley’s support among Republicans has dropped because he hasn’t been pounding the table about overturning the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. It’s also possible that his approval rating fell for some other reason, or that this poll is an outlier.

Whatever the reason, it’s interesting that both Grassley and Culver hit multi-year lows in the same SUSA poll. Senator Tom Harkin’s approval in the poll was 51 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That’s only slightly down from SUSA’s March poll that put Harkin’s approval rating at 53 percent.

Incidentally, SUSA’s April survey found that 59 percent of Iowans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing, down about ten points since the beginning of the year. There was no statistically significant gender gap; Obama’s approval was 59 percent among men and 60 percent among women. The numbers for Culver showed a clear gender gap, with 47 percent approval among women and only 37 percent approval among men.

Offer your own theories about any of these poll numbers in this thread.

I’ve never thought Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was likely to retire, especially after Tom Vilsack’s appointment as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture took the A-list challenger out of contention. (Only an unexpectedly tough re-election campaign, in my opinion, might have pushed Grassley toward retirement.)

The Hill reported today that Grassley has reached an agreement with his colleague Jeff Sessions of Alabama:

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member [of the Senate Judiciary Committee] until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.

Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, will then become ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

It’s a good deal for Grassley. Even though the Judiciary Committee will consider at least one Supreme Court nominee before 2011, the Senate Finance Committee will help write important health care and tax legislation this year.

Grassley has long wanted to be the ranking member at Judiciary, a position that opened up last week when Senator Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party. His deal with Sessions removes any doubt about whether Grassley intends to stick around for one more term.

I’m sorry to say that I see little prospect of any Democrat beating Grassley in 2010.

For a long time my money’s been on Grassley retiring in 2016, when his grandson, Iowa House Representative Pat Grassley, will be old enough to run for the U.S. Senate.

In January I went over some of Democratic Governor Chet Culver’s strengths and weaknesses looking ahead to the 2010 campaign. Click the link for the analysis, but to make a long story short, I saw three big pluses for the governor:

1. He’s an incumbent.

2. Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge since Culver won the first time.

3. He has at least $1.5 million in the bank.

I saw his problem points as:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election.

4. Culver’s campaign had a high burn rate in 2008, so may not have a commanding war chest going into the next campaign.

A lot has happened since then, so let’s review after the jump.

Last month Bleeding Heartland user American007 expressed concern about Culver’s re-election prospects in light of a Survey USA poll showing Culver at 46 percent approval/47 percent disapproval.

However, the most recent Des Moines Register poll by Selzer and Associates measured the governor’s approval rating at 55 percent. That’s down from 60 percent in the Register’s polls from September 2008 and January 2009, but much better than the approval ratings many other governors currently have (like New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine or California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The poll also revealed some reservations by Iowans about Culver, as the Democrat looks toward mounting a 2010 campaign for a second term.

Just 35 percent said they would definitely vote to re-elect Culver, while 28 percent said they would consider an alternative and 18 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. […]

Iowans also appear to be split on Culver’s effectiveness in some key areas.

Almost six in 10 say they are either very or reasonably satisfied that Culver presents himself as a strong leader, while a slightly smaller majority say they are satisfied that he has a vision for what Iowa could and should be.

Only 36 percent say they are satisfied that Culver has the right priorities for the budget, while 54 percent say he could do better.

If you assume Survey USA is correct, Culver is below 50 percent approval (never a great place for an incumbent). More worrying from American007’s perspective was that SUSA measured Culver’s support among Democrats at only 59 percent. I was less concerned about that number, because I believe lots of Democrats who might tell you they don’t approve of the job Culver is doing will certainly vote for him in 2010 against any Republican.  

If you believe Selzer’s poll numbers, Culver looks to be in a relatively strong position with 55 percent approval. A lot of governors around the country would love to trade places with him. While Selzer found that only 36 percent of Iowans are satisfied with Culver’s priorities for the budget, I wouldn’t draw many conclusions from that number. Again, plenty of liberal Democrats and environmentalists might tell you they’re not satisfied with Culver’s approach to the budget, but they’re going to vote for him in 2010 anyway.

Looking back at Culver’s strengths, as I saw them in January,

1. He’s still an incumbent, and we Iowans like to re-elect our incumbents.

2. Iowa Democrats still have a large registration edge, although I am concerned that turnout in 2010 could be much lower if Democrats don’t have enough big achievements to show for their years in power.

3. I have no idea how much Culver’s campaign committee has in the bank or how their fundraising has been going this year. However, he still has more money in the bank than any Republican who currently seems likely to run against him.

What about Culver’s problem points?

1. The economy is not getting better yet. Iowa and the nation continue to lose jobs every month. More people are losing health insurance as well. Many people believe the economy will start to turn up by next year, but job losses in this recession are worse than in any recession since the early 1980s.

If the $700 million infrastructure bonding package gets approved by the Iowa legislature, which seems possible but not guaranteed, then Culver will be able to travel the state for the next year and a half touting projects funded thanks to his leadership. Republicans have taken the position that we shouldn’t be spending money we don’t have, which sounds good in an abstract way. But people like to see things getting built or fixed in their own communities. I believe the infrastructure bonding program will garner more public support than the recent Selzer poll suggested. But first Democrats have to pass it.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. It’s way too early to know whether this will also be the case in 2010. A lot depends on the economy and what President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress can deliver by then. I get a steady stream of press releases about money from the stimulus bill being spent on this or that program in Iowa.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in 2008. That’s a given, but we don’t know by how much, or which voters won’t show up.

We can almost guarantee a strong turnout by the Republican base if gay marriage is one of the GOP’s main issues, and they are certain to hammer Culver for not doing enough to “protect” Iowans from same-sex marriage. However, I think Culver took exactly the right position after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (see here and here).

I am not convinced that Culver and other Democrats will be hurt on this issue in 2010. By late next year I think a lot of Iowans will have realized that marriage equality didn’t affect their freedom in any way. (In the long term I expect marriage equality to cement Democratic dominance among younger voters.)

My biggest concern is that Democrats will have trouble inspiring our own base. Our legislature has delivered very little on the key priorities for organized labor, and has even tried to undercut the Department of Natural Resources on some environmental issues.

4. I have no idea what the burn rate has been for Culver’s campaign committee so far in 2009. I hope it’s lower than in 2008, when about half the money raised was spent.

As I wrote in the comments under American007’s diary, a lot will depend on who the Republicans put up against Culver next year. His poll numbers may not be great, and the economy may be in bad shape, but you still can’t beat something with nothing. I would put money on most dissatisfied Democrats coming home to vote for Culver in 2010, especially if he ends up running against a candidate like Bob Vander Plaats.

I believe State Auditor David Vaudt would be a stronger candidate for the Republicans than an outspoken social conservative, but I doubt he will make it through a GOP primary if he runs for governor. Earlier this year he dared to suggest that Iowans may have to pay higher gas taxes in order to adequately fund road projects. Culver killed the gas tax proposal with a veto threat, but Republican primary rivals will remember.

Vaudt also told the Iowa Political Alert blog that he hasn’t focused much on social issues in the past. He added that on abortion he’s a “pro-life person” who would make exceptions in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. I believe this was Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ stand on abortion, and social conservatives savaged her for it last year when she was running against Congressman Dave Loebsack in IA-02.

I look forward to hearing from members of the Swing State Project community about Culver’s re-election prospects.

Final note: I haven’t heard any leaked information about findings from the Republican poll on the 2010 governor’s race, which was in the field a few weeks ago.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

There’s nothing opponents of marriage equality can do to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Iowa starting on April 24, but the political battle over marriage equality will go on for a long time after wedding bells start ringing.

After the jump I will bring you up to date on the political reaction to last Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling, prospects for amending Iowa’s constitution and the latest statewide opinion poll on same-sex marriage.

First, a quick note for anyone planning to come to Iowa to get married. Daily Kos user Wee Mama posted information about getting a marriage license in Iowa for those who live elsewhere. If you would like to have a religious ceremony, I recommend contacting The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa for help in finding a sympathetic officiant, most likely to be from a United Church of Christ, United Methodist or Unitarian Universalist congregation. Couples wanting a Jewish wedding should contact Rabbi David Kaufman of Temple B’nai Jeshurun in Des Moines, if at least one partner is Jewish and the couple is open to raising children as Jews. Rabbi Kaufman has officiated at a same-sex commitment ceremony and published this blog post on Friday demolishing the arguments against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

We now resume our previously scheduled diary…

At the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland I published longer posts on reaction to the Varnum v Brien decision from Iowa Democrats and Iowa Republicans, so I’ll just hit the highlights here.

I was very happy to read the joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. I liked it so much, I am re-posting the whole thing:

“Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

“The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

“When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

“Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

“Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

“Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.”

I’m not the biggest fan of our legislative leadership in Iowa, but Murphy and Gronstal hit it out of the park on this one. Their statement sends a very strong message to the public as well as to wavering Democratic legislators. Statehouse Democrats met behind closed doors Monday to discuss this issue, and at least a few Democrats support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but I doubt Murphy and Gronstal would have issued such a strong statement on Friday if they had any intention of letting a Proposition 8-style bill get to the floor of the Iowa House or Senate. Gronstal confirmed on April 6 that the Iowa Senate will not debate this issue this year (scroll to the bottom of this diary to read a very strong statement from him). I believe leadership will block any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage equality during the 2010 session.

Governor Chet Culver tends to avoid speaking out on controversial topics, and he dodged on Friday with a statement acknowledging strong feelings on both sides of this “complicated and emotional issue.” He said he would review the court decision with his legal counsel and with the attorney general of Iowa. I would have liked to see more supportive comments from Culver, but he is in an awkward spot. After saying in September 2007 that “it’s important we let the judicial process work itself out here,” the governor unwisely promised in January 2008 to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman” if the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Republican politicians and bloggers in Iowa are already demanding that the governor keep his promise.

I am not worried that Culver will actively fight the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, though. Not when a large segment of the Democratic base and Democratic legislative leaders support marriage equality. In addition, Culver promised on Friday to consult with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller before reacting to this ruling, and Miller (also a Democrat) issued a strong statement later the same day that began as follows:

The Court has issued a clear and well-reasoned opinion. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision is right, based on Iowa Constitutional law principles regarding equal protection. It is noteworthy that the decision was unanimous.

I wrote on Friday that two separately elected Iowa legislatures would have to approve a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage before the measure would go to Iowa voters. If Gronstal and Murphy are able to block such an effort in 2010, Republicans would have to win back the legislature in 2010, pass the amendment in 2011 or 2012, hold the legislature in 2012, and pass the amendment in 2013 or 2014. By then I believe support for marriage equality will be widespread in Iowa.

However, I forgot about something MyDD user political22 pointed out. Every ten years, Iowans vote on whether to call a Constitutional Convention, and the next scheduled vote on this matter is in 2010. Secretary of State Mike Mauro discussed this scenario Monday with Radio Iowa:

Under the traditional method of amending the state’s constitution, 2012 is the earliest an amendment banning gay marriage could be placed on the ballot. But Secretary of State Michael Mauro says in 2010, Iowans can vote to convene a constitutional convention to consider amendments to the document.

“If it were to happen, it opens up many possibilities to make all kinds of amendments,” Mauro says. “It’s wide open.”

If a constitutional convention comes up with an amendment or amendments to place before Iowa voters, a special election could be scheduled in 2011 according to Mauro. Mauro, the state’s top election official, says a constitutional convention could not rewrite the entire state constitution and would be restricted to proposing amendments — but there’s no limit on the number of amendments which could be proposed.

I forgot about this option because Iowans have never come close to approving a Constitutional Convention any of the previous times they’ve voted on the measure (in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000). I contacted Mauro today for further information, and here is the process as he described it to me.

The question about calling a Constitutional Convention will automatically be on the general election ballot in November 2010. A simple majority vote in favor is all that’s needed to approve the measure. If it passes, the legislature would have to come up with a process for selecting delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the statute provides very little guidance on how this would be done. The governor plays no role in these decisions; it would be up to the Iowa legislature to approve rules on selecting constitutional delegates.

The Constitutional Convention would meet sometime during 2011, after which the legislature would have to set an election date for the public to vote on any amendments that come out of the convention. Most likely, the special election would be held in late 2011 or early 2012. The amendments would not be voted on as a package. Each amendment would appear separately on the special election ballot. They could deal with almost any issue, from reducing the number of Iowa counties (the constitution currently stipulates that we have 99 counties) to consolidating school districts to giving counties zoning authority over large hog lots to various worker protections favored by labor unions.

Iowa Republicans would be taking a huge risk by going all-out to approve a Constitutional Convention in 2010. They may feel the public is with them on gay marriage; a poll that was in the field last week showed that just 26 percent of Iowans support gay marriage, with another 28 percent supporting civil unions. Perhaps a campaign on amending the constitution would be a helpful backdrop for Republican candidates for governor and state legislature. On the other hand, focusing on the ballot initiative would keep divisive social issues front and center, and Republican candidates running on social issues didn’t fare well in the 2006 or 2008 Iowa legislative races. Also, that recent poll showed a huge generation gap, with nearly 60 percent of Iowans under age 30 supporting gay marriage, and three-quarters of Iowans under 30 supporting either gay marriage or civil unions. Republicans need to weigh whether a short-term benefit in 2010 is worth the long-term damage to the GOP’s image among younger voters who have been trending Democratic.

A Constitutional Convention would bring other risks for Republicans too, because it could consider a lot more than gay marriage. It will be an uphill battle for Republicans to regain control of the legislature in 2010. Democrats currently have a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House and a 32-18 majority in the Iowa Senate.

If voters approve a Constitutional Convention while keeping Democrats in charge of the legislature, Democrats would be able to draft the rules for selecting delegates to that convention. Who becomes a delegate will inevitably influence the kind of amendments the assembly would consider.

Certain interest groups may not be pleased by a campaign to approve a Constitutional Convention. Kay Henderson did some scenario spinning at Radio Iowa today and suggested that road-builders might be afraid of losing the constitutional provision that earmarks all gas tax revenues for the Iowa’s Road Use Tax Fund. I wouldn’t be surprised if agribusiness fought the idea of a constitutional convention too, because there’s a lot of support in both parties for “local control” over large hog confinements.

I assume someone will soon poll Iowans on whether they would vote to call a Constitutional Convention to overturn gay marriage. I’m particularly interested to know whether Iowans who say they are for civil unions, but not gay marriage, feel strongly enough about that to support amending the Iowa Constitution.

Setting aside the constitutional discussion for a moment, many political observers are wondering how the Iowa Supreme Court ruling will affect the 2010 races. This will be a hammer for Republicans to use against Democrats in marginal state legislative districts, even if some of those Democrats themselves oppose gay marriage. I am not too worried, because no Democratic incumbents lost in 2008 after they voted to add sexual orientation to Iowa’s civil rights law. The overall economy and deteriorating budget projections are much bigger threats to Democratic incumbents in 2010, in my opinion.

As I mentioned above, Governor Culver doesn’t have a lot of good options now. He has no choice but to backtrack on his promise to “do what it takes” to “protect” heterosexual marriage from gay unions. Pushing for a constitutional amendment would produce a strongly negative response from much of the Democratic base. On the other hand, there are also Democrats and independents who oppose gay marriage and will want to see the governor do something. I hope he will use the unanimity of the court ruling and the legal advice he receives from the attorney general as excuses to revise his previous opinion on marriage equality. Republicans will try to hurt Culver on this issue in 2010, but the passionate opponents of gay marriage were never going to vote for Culver anyway.

Paradoxically, Culver could benefit from this controversy if it helps a social conservative win the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year. I believe the governor will win or lose based on economic issues, and he would have a tougher campaign against State Auditor David Vaudt or even Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey than against a hard-core “values Republican” such as Bob Vander Plaats.

The best scenario for Democrats would be for Congressman Steve “10 worst” King to run against Culver. I don’t know anyone from either party who thinks King could win a statewide election. King told the Omaha World-Herald on Friday that he is more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Culver does not “step up” to try to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

By the way, David Waldman (formerly known as Kagro X) used King’s reaction to the Varnum v Brien ruling to mock King’s lack of understanding of the whole “checks and balances” concept. We Iowans learned long ago never to expect logic or coherence from Steve King.

Ultimately, it’s far too early to guess the impact of gay marriage on the 2010 elections. There’s no consensus among Bleeding Heartland commenters about how much this hurts Democrats. While some Republicans are hoping the issue will save their party, others are angry about what they view as a weak response by Republican leaders on this issue. I am confident that public opinion will shift toward supporting marriage equality when people see the sky didn’t fall because some couples who were already living together made it official. Then again, Nate Silver thinks it will be 2013 before a majority of Iowans are ready to vote to support gay marriage.

For now, my advice to fellow Iowa Democrats is “Don’t worry, be happy” about the Varnum v Brien decision. Even if I’m wrong about the potency of gay marriage as an electoral weapon for Republicans, some things are worth losing elections over.

Final note: On April 6 I received this press release from the Iowa Senate Democrats. The bold part was bolded in the original.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader

Mike Gronstal rejects amendment to reverse marriage equality

DES MOINES:  Monday night, April 6, was the first time the Iowa Senate discussed the unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to marry. During the discussion, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs made clear he would not agree to suspend the rules to allow a vote on an amendment to reverse the court decision.  

Without the support of Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution can not move forward in the Senate.

Below is the text of Senator Gronstal’s response to Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley of Chariton .  It is also available on YouTube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

“One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men.  And those guys were talking about gay marriage.  They were talking about discussions going on across the country.  

“Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand.  You’ve already lost.  My generation doesn’t care.’

“I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that.  And I’ve talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley.   I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

“Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.  As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife.  You know I’ve been married for 37 years.  I hugged my wife.  I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

“No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.”

Sorry for the quick-hit diary, but I have a question for the Swing State Project community based on a story the Iowa Voters Blog brought to my attention.

On Tuesday the Iowa House approved a law that would allow absentee ballots to be counted before election day. (Click here to read the text of HF 670.)

Iowa Voters writes in a satirical style but raises a lot of valid concerns about this bill:

Don’t worry about this affecting the election by giving one side a warning that the results may be close. Don’t worry-it will be illegal to leak this information even though some highly political people at the courthouse will know the information on the absentee results. Don’t worry even if the county auditor himself is in a tight re-election race. Having his staff counting the ballots on Monday won’t allow him to be warned about his imminent defeat on Tuesday. Don’t think that the people who went to jail in Ohio for rigging the recount in 2004 have any cousins in Iowa election departments.

I can’t see any public interest served by this bill. Even though early voting has grown in Iowa, with about a third of the electorate casting early ballots last fall, we still got our election results promptly. It’s not as if it took days for those officials to count the absentee ballots.

Are there any other states that allow the practice of counting absentee ballots before election day? Am I crazy, or is this bill a solution in search of a problem?  

Episode 3 in my series of diaries mapping out possible redistricting scenarios in the states is here! On the agenda today: Iowa and Ohio.

Previously covered:

Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas

Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada

Again, the obligatory grain of salt alert: my districts are based on county estimates from 2007 which are due to be adjusted soon with 2008 numbers. Also, I am using projected seat totals that are equally subject to change.

Much geekdom, nerdiness, and dorkery lies below the fold…

Iowa

The redistricting process in Iowa should be among the least contentious in the nation, with an independent commission redrawing the lines. Of course, Iowa is expected to lose a seat in reapportionment, bringing its total down to four (for a Midwestern state that once had 11 districts, it is quite a sobering development to now be on par with Nevada, Utah, and Kansas in population). Mapmakers last had to eliminate a seat after the 1990 Census, and back then they opted to pit freshman Republican Rep. Jim Nussle against Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle in a competitive eastern Iowa district. It is widely assumed that their solution this round will be a race between Dem Leonard Boswell of Des Moines and Republican Tom Latham of Ames, and my map reflects that conventional wisdom. The new 3rd District, home to both incumbents, would likely have voted for Obama by a respectable, if modest, margin, but in a race between two entrenched incumbents would be a tossup. Given Latham’s proven ability to win easily in a slightly Dem-leaning district, he might even be favored against Boswell, who has had some close calls in the past and will be 78 years old in 2012.

As for the other three incumbents, they should be relatively comfortable. Note that all 99 counties are kept whole, as the commission has long strived to avoid county-splitting.

District 1 – Bruce Braley (D-Waterloo) — district expands in area but stays Democratic-leaning, as would any northeastern Iowa seat.

District 2 – Dave Loebsack (D-Mount Vernon) — but this district still stays an inch more Democratic.

District 3 – Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines) vs. Tom Latham (R-Ames) — competitive seat, probably voted for Obama by a 7-to-10-point margin, but would be a tossup in most election years. Both Reps. retain their geographical base, but Latham probably has a stronger record of winning over tough territory.

District 4 – Steve King (R-Kiron) — stays the most Republican district, by far.

Iowa was probably the easiest state I’ve yet tinkered with, as counties were kept whole and the independent commission system means that I was able to suspend political considerations to some degree. I really think the final map will not look radically different than the above.

Ohio

This was tough, to say the least, but I feel that I succeeded. I assumed a continued power split in the state; currently, Democrats have the governor’s mansion (under Gov. Ted Strickland) and a 53-46 majority in the state House, while Republicans rule the Senate 21-12. I cannot imagine Democrats winning the Senate in 2010, but the threat of a GOP gerrymander redux is real. Still, odds are against the Republicans winning both the governor’s mansion and House in one election cycle, so for now the smart money is on split redistricting control in 2011-2012. What made Ohio particularly difficult is that the Buckeye State’s is, to date, the only delegation projected to lose two seats in Congress. Even New York is only expected to lose one at this point.

Should migration patterns change in the next year, it is of course possible for Ohio to salvage one of those two seats…but most seem to believe that demographic momentum is still running against the Rust Belt. So presuming a two-seat loss in Ohio, and split power in the remap, the obvious solution is to eliminate one Democrat and one Republican.

Finding population loss in a Democratic area was easy (northeast Ohio, especially in the Cleveland area, has been hemorrhaging population for longer than most of us can remember). I settled on Dennis Kucinich as the member of Congress most likely to face a fellow incumbent, given negative growth in Cuyahoga County, VRA-implied protection of Marcia Fudge, and the improbability of Tim Ryan’s 17th District being messed with for the second decade in a row. Under my map, he would face Betty Sutton in a district whose geography might favor Sutton but would at least give Kucinich a decent shot. Voters would choose between Kucinich’s seniority and visibility, and Sutton’s plum Rules Committee assignment and reportedly good relationship with the Speaker and party leadership.

Choosing a Republican was more difficult; nowhere else in the state are population shifts particularly robust or especially dismal. I decided that a relative newcomer would be a likely choice for elimination, especially if forced against someone with more clout. Knowing that Minority Leader John Boehner simply cannot realistically be messed with, I put current freshman Steve Austria in the same seat as Mike Turner. In a hypothetical primary fight in such a district, anyone’s money would be on Turner, whose Montgomery County base would be kept intact and who would have more seniority and a sweet Appropriations Committee spot to tout.

I tried to protect the other 14 incumbents, since that is typically what comes of bipartisan redistricting plans. There was no way to give Zack Space a Democratic-leaning district without harming John Boccieri, whose seat I assumed was a must-protect, but I managed to give everyone something about which they could breathe more easily. You may particularly like what I did with Columbus. Here’s the map:

District 1 – Steve Driehaus (D-Cincinnati) — comprises all the Democratic parts of Hamilton County.

District 2 – Jean Schmidt (R-Miami Township) — knowing her history of closer-than-they-should-be electoral victories, I took out historically industrial and Democratic areas in the east and gave them to Zack Space and Charlie Wilson (where they seem to belong). Now she would represent an even more heavily Republican, decidedly suburban and exurban, district.

District 3 – Mike Turner (R-Dayton) vs. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) — do you dig its compactness as much as I do? While Dayton leans Democratic, Fayette and Greene Counties more than cancel it out to make this a Republican seat. By the way, other than Austria’s home being in the district, he would have nothing to like about this fight. Turner’s Montgomery County base is 99% in-district, and like I said, he has a new Appropriations seat to crow about. If I were Austria, I’d move and challenge Space, or possibly seek higher office. Tough break, but newbies usually draw the short straw when seats must be cut out.

District 4 – Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) — expands in area, stays safely GOP.

District 5 – Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) — now stretches all the way to Medina County because of lagging population growth, but should stay strongly GOP-leaning.

District 6 – Charlie Wilson (D-St. Clairsville) — still a socially conservative, working class and traditionally Democratic seat.

District 7 – John Boehner (R-West Chester) — it meanders a bit, but remains safely Republican. The esteemed Minority Leader would demand nothing less.

District 8 – Marcy Kaptur (D-Toledo) — as labor-friendly, Democratic, and Toledo-heavy as ever.

District 9 – Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) vs. Betty Sutton (D-Copley) — this is really a definitive industrial northern Ohio district. Its largest population anchor is Summit County (Akron), of which it covers 59%. Following that is 13% of Cuyahoga (Cleveland), 48% of Lorain, and 49% of Medina. The bulk of the district is Sutton territory, but Kucinich’s name recognition and reputation as a liberal firebrand might ignite enthusiasm in such a primary battle. An aside: I know that some Kossacks will hate me for putting Kucinich in this spot, but something in the Cleveland area had to give, and like I said, it couldn’t exactly be VRA-protected Marcia Fudge or Tim Ryan, whose seat was cobbled together in 2002 due to a plan that eliminated Jim Traficant.

District 10 – Marcia Fudge (D-Warrensville Heights) — 55% of Cuyahoga County, still majority-black and the most Democratic district in the state.

District 11 – Pat Tiberi (R-Columbus) — I served both Columbus Congresscritters’ interests here in what is, I think, my most effective turf-splitting in the state. Tiberi keeps his home in-district but now has the conservative suburbs to himself. Unlike before, I sincerely doubt his new district would have voted for Obama.

District 12 – Steve LaTourette (R-Bainbridge Township) — by dropping Portage and Trumbull Counties, it gets slightly more Republican, but still encroaches on 22% of Cuyahoga County, not exactly a boon for a GOPer. With a strong base in competitive Lake County, LaTourette should be fine.

District 13 – Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Columbus) — now contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Franklin County, in a district that should have voted Obama by double digits. See, Kilroy and Tiberi can both win from a good gerrymander!

District 14 – John Boccieri (D-Alliance) — hoping to help Space a little bit, I gave Boccieri heavily Republican Holmes County and cut out a small portion of Stark County (Canton), but to avoid endangering Boccieri, he gets a healthy 35% of strongly Democratic Summit.

District 15 – Tim Ryan (D-Niles) — if it could possibly be more Democratic, it now is, even if by accident.

District 16 – Zack Space (D-Dover) — if there is one major flaw in my map it is that I could not quite figure out how to protect Space. That’s because, in the end, this part of Ohio is tough for any Democrat, so if Space can continue to hold it easily, that is to his credit. There just wasn’t a way that I saw (and perhaps actual Ohioans could have found one) to help him significantly without hurting Boccieri, Kilroy, or Wilson, all of whom represent relatively competitive districts that were designed without their interests in mind. When all is said and done, Space should be fine, but a future Democrat may still have trouble in this district.

In general, I feel that Ohio was one of my more successful endeavors. I believe I avoided embarrassing mistakes of inexperience such as those in my maps for Massachusetts (I thought keeping counties intact was a good move toward cleaner lines, while New Englanders tell me that splitting towns is a far greater sin in that neck of the woods) and Michigan (I intended to force Mike Rogers against Mark Schauer but seem to have put him with Thad McCotter instead). I also protected most, if not all, of the incumbents, and yet managed to keep the map from looking crazily gerrymandered.

Of course, my usual soapbox line still applies: it would be far better if all states used nonpartisan redistricting like Arizona, Iowa, Washington, and other locales already do. Nonpartisan redistricting at its best doesn’t ensure competitive elections, but it keeps the boundaries within the realm of logic, and doesn’t value incumbency for incumbency’s sake; rather, it stresses more practical concerns of political categorizing such as communities of interest and pure geography. Florida is considering a redistricting reform initiative in 2010, and here’s hoping it reaches the necessary 60% (though I won’t yet hold my breath). In the mean time, the system we have is the system we must work with.

Episode 4: Georgia and New Jersey

Episode 5: Florida and Louisiana

Episode 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

Episode 7: Arizona and New York

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

It’s the third year that Democrats control both chambers of the Iowa legislature as well as the governor’s chair, and party leaders want to seize the opportunity to pass some good labor legislation. In 2007, Democrats controlled the Iowa House 53-47 but couldn’t find enough votes to pass a “fair share” bill that would have forced individuals represented by unions to stop being “free riders.” In 2008, Governor Chet Culver angered labor activists by vetoing a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights. That prompted several major labor unions in Iowa to stop giving to Culver’s campaign committee.

This week a “prevailing wage” bill dominated debate in the Iowa House. It’s one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities for this session. Democratic leaders want to pass this bill, and Culver, who wants to heal last year’s wounds, has spoken out strongly on the issue.

Although Democrats now have a 56-44 majority in the lower chamber, they were unable to find a 51st vote for the prevailing wage bill during five hours of debate on Friday. Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy now plans to keep the vote open all weekend, sleeping in the chamber, until some Democrat’s arm can be twisted on this issue.  

I don’t want to wade too far into the Iowa weeds here; I’ve written more on this mess at Bleeding Heartland.

I’m bringing this to the attention of the Swing State Project community because it underscores the cost of the inadequate get-out-the-vote effort last year on behalf of our statehouse candidates.

Last summer Barack Obama’s campaign took over the “coordinated campaign” role from the Iowa Democratic Party and promised to work for candidates up and down the ticket. But staffers and volunteers in the unprecedented number of Obama field offices didn’t even collect voter IDs for our state House and Senate candidates. Our legislative candidates weren’t usually mentioned in scripts for canvassers and rarely had their fliers included in lit drops. After the election, Rob Hubler, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the GOTV effort.

In the end, Obama carried this state by 9 points, but we lost several excrutiatingly close races in the Iowa House (more details on that are at Bleeding Heartland). If even one of those races had gone the other way, we would have the votes to pass the prevailing wage bill without the fiasco that is now unfolding.

The Iowa Democratic Party must run a better coordinated campaign in 2010 and must insist that the GOTV in 2012 is about more than re-electing President Obama. Even Obama’s general election campaign director in Iowa, Jackie Norris, admitted that more could have been done for the down-ticket candidates:

I also think that a lot of the people who voted were new voters and while we educated them enough to get them out to support the president they need to now be educated about the down ballot races.

I have stopped donating to the Democratic National Committee for now, because I am concerned that new DNC chairman Tim Kaine plans to replace efforts to strengthen state parties across the country with a 50-state strategy to re-elect President Obama.

We need better coordinated campaigns to GOTV in 2010 and 2012, because even if Obama remains as popular as he is now, support for him will not magically translate into votes for other Democratic candidates.

As the fate of the prevailing wage bill in Iowa shows, lack of attention to down-ticket races will affect what Democrats can achieve long after the election.