David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.
However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?
One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.
As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.
State Representative Dawn Pettengill left the Democratic caucus for the Republican caucus today. The Register has the story from Chris Rants’s press conference, which just happened:
The change cuts the Democratic majority in the House to 53 seats and gives minority Republicans 47 seats. It takes 51 votes to pass legislation.
Pettengill had battled publicly with the House Democratic caucus this year over issues such as labor union fees and the cigarette tax increase. She had indicated publicly she might consider leaving the caucus, although she had suggested she was more likely to become an independent.
“The House Democratic leadership pursued an agenda which veered far from the principles for which my constituents and I stand,” she said in a statement. “My decision gives me the best opportunity to represent the values of my constituents.”
This is going to make progressives — particularly the ones I know who knocked doors for her during the last campaign — pretty unhappy. Pettengill is known for her emotional outbursts, and my sense is that she perceives her district to be more conservative than it actually is.
I posted a while back about why I didn’t think Pettengill was going to defect. It turns out I was wrong. This kind of transition, from the majority to the minority (particularly when it looks like the Republicans will likely remain in the minority through next campaign cycle) is surprising, but Pettengill planted the seed for a defection months ago.
As an aside, this comes as a double-disappointment for many progressives, who were hoping that Rants planned to announce his resignation today. Rumors that he will resign have been circulating for months, and there is no word yet on whether Pettengill’s switch will influence his decision on that one way or the other.
Today was a big day in the Iowa House, where Representatives voted 59-37 to pass Senate File 427, which updates Iowa’s civil rights law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation).
Until yesterday, few people expected the bill to make it to the floor of the House at all, even though it passed the Iowa Senate last month. Without a guarantee that the bill would pass (or even a guarantee that all of the Democrats would sign on), the leadership was reluctant to force its members to make a vote that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. Ex-Speaker and current Minority Leader Chris Rants was doing everything he possibly could to prevent any Republican members from supporting the bill (even though some Republicans were definitely interested), and it looked like he might succeed in forcing a stalemate through the end of the legislative session.
In the end, though, the Democratic leadership put civil rights ahead of political concerns, and put the bill up to a vote. The result was a resounding victory. And, although Murphy and McCarthy have been getting a lot of grief about VOICE and a few other issues that have worked up our blogging community, this should earn them back some street cred.
More from Mark’s diary over at BleedingHeartland (partially cross-posted with permission):
Senate File 427 updates Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing, education, or credit practices based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The discussion on various blogs throughout the state over the past few months has focused on what the Iowa Legislature has FAILED to accomplish - rather than the victories. This bill is truly a victory for progressives and for everyone who would like to call Iowa home. Leadership in both chambers made this bill a priority throughout the session - and now we can separate ourselves from the 33 other states where it’s OK to dismiss employees because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
In particular, it was leadership from Democrats in cooperation with Iowa businesses and civil rights leaders who pushed this bill through to final passage. Corporate America is rapidly realizing that creating a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to work is an important part of growing a business - and a state. According to an article in Fortune Magazine:
So it’s clear where big business is going. What’s interesting is to watch it pull the rest of the country along. It turns out that the most important factor shaping people’s feelings about gay issues is not their age or even their religion - although those do matter - but whether they have relatives, friends or co-workers who are gay.
“The more out and open people are, the more changed the straight people are all around them,” says Joe Solmonese, the Human Rights Campaign president. HRC began organizing workplaces to secure benefits for gay employees. This has inadvertently become a shrewd political strategy as well. “To move the mindset of the American people, we need to find the places where they congregate,” Solmonese says. “Priority one is corporate America.”
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
In an article for the New Republic online, Jonathan Cohn points out that one possible unintended consequence of the frontloaded primary system is that it increases the likelihood of a protracted primary and would elevate the importance of late primaries like those in Oregon and West Virginia. While almost every four years, political pundits salivate at that thought of a fierce primary that would last months or even a floor fight at the convention to determine the nomination, Cohn hints at a more disturbing historic truth in his article: the primaries that he mentions as the late primaries, Oregon, West Virginia and Indiana were once the early primaries. West Virginia was where John Kennedy effectively clinched the nomination in 1960 and Indiana and Oregon were decisive battlegrounds in the 1968 primary contest between Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. (The first time a Kennedy ever lost an election was when Bobby Kennedy finished second to Eugene McCarthy in Oregon.) The drift of the primary schedule has turned what were once early primaries into laggards.
We’ve expressed our concern about the frontloading of the primary process before. But this drift towards earlier primaries has the potential to end the Iowa Caucuses as we know them. The “Super-Duper Tuesday” on February 5th and Florida’s move to hold its primary on January 29 may force the Iowa Caucuses to be held, at latest, on January 7. If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the caucuses are held in 2007 in order to preserve their primacy. If that happens, then the Caucuses are finished. Holding a Presidential Primary or Caucus in 2007 would be so absurd that it would make wholesale reform of the Presidential nominating process inevitable. If there is top to bottom reform of the process, Iowa will not be first in the nation anymore. The interests opposed to Iowa are dramatically stronger than those that support Iowa and once the caucuses lose the advantage of stasis and institutional conservativism, the Iowa Caucuses will be not be first in the nation before. The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008 as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely, and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008, as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater, and as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
In the most recent addition of Chris Cilizza’s Friday line mentioning Senate seats that might change hands in 2008, Iowa was not mentioned at all while safely Republican states like Nebraska and Mississippi were. Charlie Cook also sees Harkin’s seat as relatively safe, as does Stu Rothenberg.
Although there has been rampant speculation that Steve King might run for Senate, this indicates that even if King does run, the consensus is forming already that Harkin is a shoo-in. This will make it very difficult for any Republican to fundraise until it can be shown that Harkin is vulnerable. If King does run, it would be tilting at windmills, most similar to when Denise Majette gave up her House seat in order to lose a Senate race by 20 points in Georgia in 2004. Although Harkin will never win by the same margins that Chuck Grassley was able to win by when he ran against Art Small of “Think Big, Vote Small” fame, Harkin should be able to coast to a relatively comfortable victory if the political climate stays the same or doesn’t deteriorate too much. After all if you’ve defeated five incumbent Republican members of the U.S. House or Senate, this guy shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Word on the street is that Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has started staffing his field operation in Iowa. Sources have revealed to us that Brad Frevert has been hired as Richardson’s Iowa Field Director.
Frevert has worked for the Iowa Democratic Party since 2004, when he served as Regional Field Director out of Waterloo. After the 2004 elections, he was hired as the state party’s off-year Field Director, and he served as Deputy Field Director under Jesse Harris during the 2006 election. Before working for the IDP, he worked for Bob Graham’s aborted 2004 Presidential Campaign and then for AFSCME, organizing caucus supporters for Dean.
Frevert is an experienced Iowa organizer, and this pickup shows that Richardson is absolutely planning to play in the Iowa Caucuses.
Here’s a prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Iowa caucuses. Perhaps very badly. And it’s because she is still fumbling on Iraq.
In perhaps her most forceful statement on the issue, Clinton told DNC members on Friday: “If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war… If we in Congress don’t end this war by January of 2009, as president, I will.”
But according to a survey (pdf) done by The Politico (via MyDD), she does not regret casting her 2002 vote in favor of the war. This is a very tricky line to walk: As president, she would not have been for war, but as senator she would be? Isn’t there a singular responsibility as an elected official to do what’s best for her country, regardless of title? I’m sorry, but this is straight out of a 2004 John Kerry campaign.
MyDD’s Chris Bowers notes that Clinton is trying to pull a Joe Lieberman: appear anti-war to accrue Democratic votes, but maintain support for the war in reality. It worked in Connecticut, he says, because “low information voters just won’t know the difference.” Unfortunately for Clinton, Iowa caucus-goers are hardly low information voters. They brave the sleet and snow in order to stand — sometimes for hours — in crowded high school gymnasiums. And they sure as hell know where the candidates stand.
They also, sure as hell, oppose the Iraq War. The AP reported yesterday that the Iraq War is the number one issue for Iowa voters and that Iowa Democrats are overwhelmingly against it: 86 percent of Iowa Dems said the war wasn’t worth it and 76 percent favored at least the beginnings of withdrawal. According to Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Dave Nagle, “Anybody who tries to toe-step around it is going to have a real problem.”
At the moment, it looks like Hillary Clinton fits that anybody description pretty well. Despite a recent ARG poll that had her in the lead, every other poll coming out of the Hawkeye State has shown her down, behind Edwards, Obama, and sometimes even Vilsack. The fact of the matter is, the more people get to know her, the more they will get to know her views on Iraq. Which is why it looks like Iowa Dems will be looking for somebody else.
David Yepsen’s column today makes the argument that Democrats in the state legislature should avoid changing anything to do with Iowa’s right to work law or risk losing control in 2008. He asserts that “Polls show overwhelming support for such worker freedom.”
A few weeks ago, I started getting strange calls on my Blackberry from a number I didn’t recognize. I didn’t answer the first few times the number popped up. Finally, after it was clear that this person wanted to talk to me and would not leave a message, I answered the next call I got, and it turned out to be someone in a call center in Missouri (I think it was Missouri) taking a poll. It was clear from the first question (something to do with protections for “the right to life,” without saying what the “right to life” was) that the poll of Iowa voters was being conducted by some conservative operation.
Question three, word for word, was “Do you support Iowa’s Right To Work Law?”
All of the survey questions were slanted to create a pattern of “Yes” answers (that is, when they wanted someone to say they did not support a particular law, they would ask “Do you disagree with X?” instead of “Do you agree with X?”), and the callers seemed to have been instructed to sound happier when someone answered “Yes” rather than “No.” In a survey like that, of course the vast majority of Iowa voters are going to say “Yes.”
But if you asked them, instead, “Do you think it is important that Iowa workers are able to engage in collective bargaining with their employers?” it seems plausible that an equal number would have said “Yes.” I’m not sure what polls Yepsen has seen on the issue, but I thought at least mentioning how slanted and disingenuous the survey I got was might help get us beyond the discussion of poll numbers.
