Des Moines Register. February 13, 2019
Iowa is on the wrong side of history: Amend state constitution to restore ex-felon voting rights
Iowa was ahead of its time in 1870, when voters amended the state constitution to allow black men the right to vote.
People were interested in these podcasts
Iowa was in step with the rest of the nation in 1920, when voters ratified the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, allowing women to join men at the ballot box.
Now, it’s time for Iowa to catch up with most other states in recognizing that people convicted of a felony crime should not losing their voting rights for life. Iowa is one of only two states that ban voting for former felons for life. In Iowa, voting rights may be restored only if the governor grants a waiver.
At about the same time Iowans were granting the vote to black men, they amended the state constitution to withhold the vote from people convicted of “infamous crimes.” That has been interpreted to mean anyone convicted of a felony. Times have changed since the 1870s, however, and our understanding of criminal justice has evolved. We now realize that if we withhold rights and opportunities from former prisoners - including the right to vote - we limit their ability to re-enter society successfully and productively.
The prohibition on felon voting has also disenfranchised legitimate voters, as a Register investigation revealed. It’s past time for Iowa to change this damaging law.
Gov. Kim Reynolds has shown leadership on this issue, making it one of the central priorities of her Condition of the State message. That’s particularly admirable as her predecessor and mentor, former Gov. Terry Branstad, erected barriers to restoration of voting rights on his first day back in office in 2011. Branstad rescinded the executive order signed by former Gov. Tom Vilsack that automatically restored voting rights to felons.
Reynolds has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow felons to vote after they have “discharged their sentence,” including any probation or parole. The text of the amendment would change Article II, Section 5, of the Iowa Constitution to read:
“Sec. 5. Disqualified persons. A person adjudged mentally incompetent to vote or a person convicted of any felony who has not discharged his or her sentence shall not be entitled to the privilege of an elector.”
We endorse this proposed constitutional amendment and call on all Iowa lawmakers to support it. It will take approval of two consecutive general assemblies and a vote of Iowans to pass the amendment.
We do so with a caution flag. The meaning of “discharged their sentence” may be open to interpretation. Lawmakers and Reynolds should clearly state their intent that a felon has “discharged” his or her sentence after serving any probation or parole and that other requirements, such as restitution, do not apply to restoration of voting rights.
Some Republican lawmakers have balked at the idea of restoring voting rights before a former prisoner has completed restitution to victims. But some indigent defendants may never be able to repay victims. The reason for the amendment is to make it easier for ex-felons to vote, not to erect more barriers.
In a perfect world, we would simply repeal the prohibition on voting for convicted felons. That would eliminate the potential for qualified voters being disenfranchised by bad record-keeping. It would give even prisoners the dignity of this prized right of citizenship. But we understand the political reality of getting even this proposed amendment through the Legislature when some majority Republicans want to impose more conditions on the restoration of voting rights.
We also encourage the governor to use her executive authority to expedite the restoration of voting rights for Iowans as the slow process of amending the constitution proceeds. Every election matters, and it would be wrong to force these Iowans to sit out even one more cycle.
We urge Iowans to join us in calling on legislators to act as quickly as possible to send this amendment to the people. We trust that Iowans will continue their proud history of inclusion.
______
Sioux City Journal. February 15, 2019.
Leave Iowa fireworks law the way it is
As we have said before, our view of legalized fireworks in Iowa is mixed. We understand both sides of this discussion.
We acknowledge existing support for fireworks among Iowans and appreciate the economic benefits of capturing part of a business Iowa used to lose to border states (including Nebraska and South Dakota) each year, but we respect firefighters, emergency services providers and health care providers who oppose them for safety reasons and we sympathize with residents who don’t want related noise, or worse, in their neighborhoods.
As a result, we weren’t strong advocates for legalizing fireworks in 2017, but we weren’t opponents, either. Frankly, we would have been OK with either outcome.
In the end, we believe Iowa reached a reasonable, middle-ground position in which the possession, use and sale of fireworks were made legal on and near the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve, but individual communities were allowed to limit or ban discharge.
In our view, no good reason exists for change in this approach, so we oppose a bill introduced in this year’s legislative session under which cities and counties would be required to allow discharge of fireworks on Independence Day.
The bill under consideration would not impact the city of Sioux City today because the discharge of fireworks is allowed on July 4 in our community by ordinance. However, the city should have the right to change the ordinance in the future if local leaders believe circumstances warrant change. Similarly, cities in which discharge bans have been passed shouldn’t have fireworks forced on them by the state.
In our view, local leaders are in better position to know if fireworks should or should not be legal within their local jurisdictions than are legislators in Des Moines.
Lawmakers should leave the state fireworks law the way it is.
____
Quad-City Times. February 13, 2019
A new day for the Iowa Caucuses
The Iowa Democratic Party took an important step Monday toward modernizing the Iowa Caucuses with what party leaders say are the most significant changes in nearly 50 years.
The change that got the biggest headline was the party’s new proposal to hold a half dozen “virtual” caucuses next year, which will give people who can’t attend the regular caucuses at 7 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2020, a chance to take part.
This proposal to allow attendance using a phone or mobile device answers some of the criticism that the caucuses shut out people who work second shift or otherwise can’t make it to the regular event.
We don’t expect it will quiet the caucuses’ most fiery critics, though. This still isn’t a primary (by design), which allows people a larger window of time to vote. And there is no guarantee the votes of the people who caucus “virtually” will be worth as much as those who show up on Feb. 3. The new proposal allocates only 10 percent of delegates to virtual caucuses.
For those who don’t like the arcane caucus rules that already don’t strictly follow the one-person-one-vote principle, this will probably be a point of criticism. But we think it is a credible attempt at including people who can’t show up in person.
Having said that, we do wonder if the 10 percent allocation is a bit too low. Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price told us that some thought 10 percent was too high. He called it a good place to start. Our concern is if an extraordinarily high number of people attend the virtual caucuses, that will just perpetuate criticisms that the caucuses are fundamentally undemocratic.
We also think the new plan to create a paper trail is a much overdue step toward accountability. Anybody who has attended a caucus, particularly busy ones, knows there is a certain amount of chaos. That doesn’t exactly establish confidence votes are being counted or reported accurately.
The Democrats’ new plan will keep a record of the votes cast, and the raw totals will be released.
This plan does increase accountability, but it also has some potential landmines.
Historically, the party has not released these totals. After all, the currency of the caucuses has always been “state delegate equivalents,” which are allocated by precinct according to the amount of support a candidate receives. That doesn’t necessarily correspond directly to the initial support a candidate gets, however. The party requires that a candidate receive at least 15 percent of the votes at most individual precincts in order to be considered viable. If that doesn’t happen, that candidate’s supporters are split up among other candidates or an undecided group in a process called realignment.
(Republicans conduct a simple straw poll at their caucuses.)
Under this new system, the Democratic Party will still report the number of state delegate equivalents for each candidate. But the party also will report the total number of votes a candidate received at the initial stage of the caucus, as well as after realignment.
We think this is a worthy step toward transparency and accountability. Recall, after the 2016 caucuses - when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders finished in a near-tie in state delegate equivalents - the Sanders camp demanded that raw vote totals be released. They weren’t.
In 2020, this will be done. But it does raise the question: What metric will now be used to declare the winner? It is conceivable that one candidate might have the most state delegate equivalents, but another might come out on top in the number of overall supporters.
That could have the potential to create confusion as the news media report the results. Or as campaigns spin them.
Price told us the party will award convention delegates based on state delegate equivalents. As for declaring a winner, he said: “We just release results.”
We would note that the caucuses have never been solely about who wins. Often, the biggest benefit from Iowa comes not from winning but beating expectations. It also is a place where voters can get close to candidates and it’s where a candidate’s message and organizational skills are put to the test. The state also has tended to weed out candidates who just don’t catch fire.
The party is taking comments on the plan for 30 days. It also still must be approved by the Democratic National Committee.
We don’t expect this new proposal will meet all concerns. The plan does nothing to change the complaint that Iowa has too little racial diversity to go first, nor could it. But we do credit the party for listening to the criticism - and putting on the table a credible proposal.
The caucuses needed to change. This plan recognizes that fact, but it still seeks to preserve the traditional system and the state’s privileged place in the presidential nominating system.
____
Please read our comment policy before commenting.