LEGISLATIVE REPORT – ACTION ALERT

AFTER FUNNEL DAY

Norm Pawlewski – Lobbyist

February 19, 2010

As suspected, most pro-life, pro-family, fiscal restraint bills filed by Republican legislators in both chambers failed the funnel.

An attempt to get marriage amendments up for a vote in both the House and Senate before the funnel date failed. In the House, only one Democrat, Rep. Dolores Mertz, a sincere supporter of life and family values legislation, supported a procedural vote to bring HJR 6 to a vote.

Rep. Mike Reasoner of Creston, who filed his own joint resolution (HJR 2001) to amend the constitution to favor traditional marriage, was true to form. He did not support getting the amendment to the floor for a vote. I trust his constituents took note. He does not support getting the amendment to a vote of the Legislature, let alone the people. As I said in previous reports, game playing is for arcades and casinos, not the Capitol of the State of Iowa. Reasoner is obviously playing games, hoping you will fall for his deception and re-elect him. He does not deserve your support or your loyalty.

In the Senate, the process to get a bill to the floor without going through a committee is a little different. A document called a discharge petition is circulated by a sponsoring senator. If at least twenty-six senators, a majority, sign the petition, a bill goes directly to the calendar, avoiding the committee process. All eighteen Republicans signed the petition. In addition, five Democrats signed. They were: Sen. Dennis Black, Sen. Tom Hancock, Sen. Richard Olive, Sen. Keith Kreiman and Sen. Joe Seng. Were they serious? Or did they know that the petition would never attain the 26 signatures needed? I wouldn’t doubt Sen. Hancock’s sincerity. He has supported the amendment in the past and offered to sign the discharge petition as soon as he knew that Sen. David Johnson was going to circulate it. He is also the only one of the five who is not facing re-election this November.

I have talked with each of the four senators who suddenly found their spine and signed this petition. None of them was, in the past, willing to go against Mike Gronstal on this issue. They all had several opportunities to show a sincere commitment to a traditional definition of marriage. They never did. My best guess, only it’s not really a guess; it’s butt covering time. They had Mike Gronstal’s blessing to sign the petition and deceive voters in their area who believe this to be an important issue in regard to their re-election.

According to my sources, joint resolutions are not affected by funnel dates. That means that the three marriage amendment joint resolutions, SJR 2001, HJR 6 and HJR 2001 (Reasoner’s bill) are still alive. It’s doubtful, however, that they will be brought up again. Two other joint resolutions of interest, HJR 2012 by Rep. Rod Roberts and HJR 2013 by Rep. Jason Schultz, are also still alive. Since they both propose reasonable reforms to the Supreme Court, they too will die. I doubt whether the Democrat leadership who depends on getting things done by the court that they can’t get done by the legislative process, like redefining marriage, will allow these bills to proceed.

According to State Auditor David Vaudt, the budget is severely out of balance and the governor may have violated state law by over-budgeting. He has asked the attorney general to investigate.

Regardless of what comes of this action, the state has serious budget problems. The Legislature and the governor outspent income by close to 900 million dollars. Although they have both proposed cuts, it’s too little, too late.

HF 2281 and its companion in the Senate, SF 2219, propose an expanded family planning program through Medicaid by way of a waiver. Most of the money will go to Planned Parenthood, which does not need any more government money. Ask your state representative to vote against HF 2281 (formerly HSB 611) and your state senator to vote against SF 2219, formerly HSB 3086. Find contact information for your state representative and senator at http://www.iowachristian.com/legislator_lookup.html

Senator David Hartsuch has sent a letter to Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus asking her to send him an “updated version of the Constitution.” He writes, “It seems that my copy is antiquated and obsolete.”

He goes on to say, “In the Varnum decision, the court stated, “State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation…This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.”

Unfortunately, my outdated version of the Constitution still contains a vestigial reference to God, and clearly expresses a religious view which is forbidden by your updated copy. My copy reads, “Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government,…”

As you recognized in the Varnum case, “If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned. Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256, 78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J., dissenting).”

I suspect that the “old” Preamble pinched more than comforted and has therefore been abandoned.

Thank you for sending me your updated version of the Constitution, and for your ongoing service to our State.

Do you think the Chief Justice will respond? I don’t.

Paid for by: Iowa Christian Alliance

939 Office Park Rd. - Suite 115 * West Des Moines, IA 50265 * 515-225-1515