Iowa

Election 2024: How Iowa’s abortion law could affect state legislature races

Published

1 year ago

July 29, 2024

Election 2024: How Iowa’s abortion law could affect state legislature races

DES MOINES, Iowa (Gray Television Iowa Capitol Bureau) – With Iowa’s abortion law now in effect, it could become an issue that drives voter turnout in November.

The law bans abortion once cardiac activity is detected, which is usually around six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors say that’s before most patients know they’re pregnant. The law does have limited exceptions for rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and when the life of the mother is in danger.

Abortion itself won’t be on the ballot in November because Iowa doesn’t allow citizen-led ballot initiatives. Any changes would have to come from the legislature.

Democrats are already making this election about abortion.

At the Iowa Democratic Party’s Liberty & Justice Celebration Saturday, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said, “Iowans are fed up. They’re furious about this abortion ban, and we’re going to make ‘em pay. That’s exactly what we’re going to do.”

Konfrst says they’re starting an awareness campaign to tell voters that the law is in effect and which Republicans voted for it. “We’ve had times when we’ve been saved by the courts before. That didn’t happen this time. Iowans need to know and Iowans need to know if they feel helpless, if they feel like they want to do something about this, their best opportunity to do so is at the ballot box in 99 days,” Konfrst said.

Iowa State University Political Science Professor Dave Peterson says framing elections around abortion rights generally helps Democrats. “The record post-Dobbs has been that when an election gets framed to be about abortion – either abortion is specifically on the ballot or that’s what the candidates have chosen to focus on and what voters are thinking about. That’s good for Democrats,” Peterson said.

Though, Peterson says Iowa Democrats will have a harder time since abortion itself isn’t on the ballot.

In a social media post Monday, presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris blamed Iowa’s law on former President Donald Trump. “What we need to do is vote ‘cause I’m going to tell you something, when I’m President of the United States, I will sign in to law the protections for reproductive freedom,” Harris said.

Peterson says Harris making abortion a central part of her campaign will keep the issue top of mind for voters, which can trickle down to state legislature races. ”So by Harris campaigning on abortion, again, when people are going in to the voting booth, that’s likely to be, or more likely to be one of the preeminent issues they’re thinking about. Again, we are several, or 100 days or so out, and so lots of things can change,” Peterson said.

Peterson says Republicans don’t perform as well when elections are framed around abortion and likely won’t talk about it much. He says their best strategy is to talk about immigration, inflation or “basically anything else.”

We reached out to Republican lawmakers for interviews to see how they’re planning to talk about abortion on their campaigns.

In a statement, Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley says Republicans will build on work they’ve done to expand access to affordable childcare, expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage, and improving the foster care and adoption system.

“The Legislature is elected by the people, and for too long, the courts have stood in the way of Iowans having their voices heard on this matter. We are a pro-life and pro-family state. In Iowa, we respect both the life of the unborn child and the life of the mother. While the out-of-touch Iowa Democrats fight for abortion up until the day of birth, we will continue to fight for common sense policies that promote and protect life. We will continue to promote strong families in all that we do in the Iowa House. We must build on the work we’ve already done to expand access to affordable child care, extend postpartum coverage on Medicaid, and improve our foster care and adoption systems,” Grassley said.

Iowa Senate President Amy Sinclair said many Iowans have waited for this day to come.

“The Iowa Senate, House of Representatives, and Governor Reynolds have consistently supported the protection of life at the sound of a heartbeat. This commonsense law recognizes important exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Today, the support for protection of life becomes a reality. Lives will be saved starting today. Many Iowans have voted, volunteered, and prayed to see this day finally happen,” Sinclair said.

A constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights could be placed on the ballot at some point in the future. A constitutional amendment would have to pass two General Assemblies first. This is unlikely to happen in the near future given the Republican supermajorities in both chambers.

—

Conner Hendricks covers state government and politics for Gray Television-owned stations in Iowa. Email him at conner.hendricks@gray.tv; and follow him on Facebook at Conner Hendricks TV or on X/Twitter @ConnerReports.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth

Published

6 hours ago

October 23, 2025

Press Room

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth

A federal judge did not err when finding an Iowa immigration enforcement law likely unconstitutional, a federal appellate court ruled.

But it is sending the case back to determine whether the state should nonetheless be allowed to enforce the law in some cases.

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Oct. 23 decision upholds an injunction blocking Iowa from enforcing Senate File 2340, which Gov. Kim Reynolds signed in April 2024 to make “illegal reentry” a crime under state law.

In a lawsuit bought by the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, Judge Stephen Locher ruled last year that immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility and Iowa’s law is invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

“As a matter of politics, the new legislation might be defensible,” Locher wrote in June 2024. “As a matter of constitutional law, it is not.”

Thursday’s decision is technically the second time the 8th Circuit has ruled against the law.

Originally, Iowa was sued twice: by Migrant Movement for Justice and the Biden Administration. Locher granted injunctions in both cases, and in January, the 8th Circuit affirmed his ruling in the DOJ lawsuit and dismissed the second injunction as duplicative.

Shortly after, though, the Trump administration dismissed the federal government’s challenge, and the court agreed to rehear and rule on the injunction in the Migrant Movement for Justice case.

What did Iowa’s immigration law do?

Under the 2024 law, entering or residing in Iowa after being deported from or denied entry to the U.S. or failing to depart when ordered became a state offense. It followed a similar law Texas adopted, both of which have since been blocked by courts.

The Iowa law also required judges to order anyone convicted under the law to return to their country of origin.

In his order blocking the law, Locher identified several problems: Most glaringly, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that state-level immigration laws interfere with and are preempted by federal immigration enforcement.

In the case of Iowa, Locher noted, having state judges order people to leave the country bypasses the extensive and often case- and country-specific federal system to decide when, how, and to where a person can be deported.

“This creates an untenable dichotomy between federal and state law in an area where the Supreme Court has recognized that the United States must speak with a single, harmonious voice,” Locher wrote.

The law also does not make any exceptions for people with current legal resident status. That’s a problem for several of the plaintiffs in the Migrant Movement case, who at one time were deported or denied entry but later were able to obtain legal residency.

While Attorney General Brenna Bird said she did not intend to enforce the law against legal residents, Locher noted county prosecutors would not be bound by her statement.

8th Circuit finds law likely unconstitutional

In it’s ruling Thursday, the 8th Circuit once again upheld Locher’s reasoning.

Judge Duane Benton wrote for the court that Iowa’s law intrudes into federal immigration authority even further than the Arizona law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.

Allowing state officials not only to detain people for suspected immigration violations, but to order them removed from the country, with a potential prison sentence of 10 years, greatly exceeds the state’s powers under the U.S. Constitution, the court found.

The court rejected Iowa’s arguments in defense of the law, finding that many ran contrary to the plain text of the statute.

For example, where Bird argued the law only required the state to deliver aliens to a “port of entry” — namely, the Des Moines airport — and would have no effect outside the state’s borders, the appeals court noted the law requires migrants to leave the entire country, not just the state, under penalty of prison.

“Any enforcement of the act would likely conflict with federal law by interfering with the enforcement discretion that federal law gives to federal officers,” Benton wrote. “(Plaintiffs) have clearly shown that their facial challenge is likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Act stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Yes, but: to whom does the injunction apply?

Locher’s injunction blocked any state agent, including county prosecutors, from enforcing the law against anyone. That may be too broad, the appellate court says.

In a June 2025 case against Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited the use of “universal injunctions” that apply beyond the parties in a particular case.

In light of that ruling, the 8th Circuit is directing Locher to consider whether he has authority to block enforcement by all state officers, as opposed to just those named in the lawsuit, and whether the law can be enforced against individuals who are not members of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice.

Regardless of how the injunction may be modified, the lawsuit is likely to continue.

Locher’s June 2024 order put in place a preliminary injunction, blocking the state from enforcing the law while the case progressed. Barring further appeals, Thursday’s appellate decision means the case will continue before Locher for further proceedings before the court could potentially make its injunction permanent.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa State Cyclones Defensive Coach Still Searching for Answers at Key Position

Published

1 day ago

October 22, 2025

Press Room

Iowa State Cyclones Defensive Coach Still Searching for Answers at Key Position

Jeremiah Coope — Raymond Carlin III-Imagn Images

Jon Heacoc — Raymond Carlin III-Imagn Images

Source link

Iowa

Here’s how D.O.G.E. Task Force would change Iowa

Published

2 days ago

October 22, 2025

Press Room

Here’s how D.O.G.E. Task Force would change Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa (Gray Media Iowa State Capitol Bureau) — It is 136 pages long, took seven months to put together, and looks to modernize, streamline, and reshape state and local governments in Iowa. It also already has opposition before any of the new ideas have been put into implementation.

On Tuesday, Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, released the Iowa D.O.G.E. (Department of Government Efficiency) Task Force’s report that the 15-member volunteer group submitted to her last month.

Reynolds said while discussing the task force’s 45 recommendations, “It is important that we never settle, that we continue to look for ways to be more effective, efficient and accountable to the taxpayers of Iowa.”.

Read the task force recommendations here.

Task force members called for changing Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) but not eliminating it. The report suggested keeping IPERS available for current state employeees but giving new employees the option of using IPERS or joining a defined contribution plan.

Members also suggested studying benefits that state workers receive and whether they contribute enough to their health care costs.

The task force called for incentives for teachers based on performance, a focus on expanding the number of instructors in high demand fields, and introducing work-based learning experiences to freshmen and sophomore high school students.

Utilizing technology so that artificial intelligence could take over some tasks in state government and freeing up workers to concentrate on other areas was also a suggestion. So was digitizing government forms.

The task force recommended sharing services whenever possible in local government, which could be part of an overall strategy of lessening expenses in local government to reduce property taxes.

House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, a Des Moines Democrat, criticized the overall set of proposals.

“This Governor’s DOGE task force report is deeply disturbing, coming from individuals who’ve never worked a day in their lives. They’re attacking the very people who keep our communities strong, teachers, public safety officers, and other dedicated public servants,” Meyer said in a statement.

Other than stressing that she would preserve IPERS, Reynolds did not take positions on the list of recommendations. She could announce some of them as part of her 2026 legislative priorities when she delivers the annual Condition of the State Address in January.

Source link