Heckling Scott Raecker

Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.

While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.

So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.

Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.

8 comments February 8th, 2007

News Roundup

Mike Gronstal and Mary Lundby are calling for a vote on anti-bullying legislation to protect gay students. Pat Murphy spoke to this issue when he came to our Campus Dems meeting last week, and Advocate.com notes the same pesky roadblock to which he alluded: Chris Rants. What does Rants find wrong with protecting GLBT students from verbal and physical harassment in school, you might ask? Here’s a charming quote: “We need to protect fat kids, kids with glasses, kids who are too smart, kids who aren’t too smart…. Schools should be a safe place regardless of whatever sets you apart.”

New York Governor George Pataki is opening an office in Des Moines this week, making him the first presidential hopeful to do so. New York Public Radio even calls it a “campaign office,” and doesn’t mention Freedom PAC, to whom the headquarters technically belongs.

The Register leads with both Culver and Nussle encountering a skeptical crowd at a VFW meeting Saturday, but based on the article, it sounds like Nussle had a harder time of it. Culver was asked where he would get the money to fund his proposals to help veterans, and responded with concrete plans to streamline the state budget and utilize the tax surplus. Nussle, on the other hand, was confronted with his anti-veteran congressional voting record, and replied, “My grandmother always taught me growing up that actions speak louder than words. Every opportunity I’ve had, when I’ve been chairman, I’ve increased the budget over what the president, over what the budget … recommended.” I’ll let you insert something snarky of your own here.

A new Register poll shows Hillary Clinton losing Iowa to four Republican potentials. It also finds that 57% of respondents think it is a bad idea for Vilsack to run for president.

Oh, and CIETC is thinking of changing its name.

Add comment September 25th, 2006