Democrats make it official; Mathis is SD 18 nominee

The Linn County Democratic Central Committee made short work of their special nominating convention for Iowa Senate District 18 Tuesday night, and the outcome came as no surprise. Former television news anchor Liz Mathis will be the Democratic nominee.

“I’m honored to accept this nomination,” Mathis said in a statement following the convention. “I believe District 18 needs a dedicated representative in the Iowa Senate to end the gridlock and see us through long-term economic progress. I pledge to be that person.

“As a candidate, I will reach out every day to the people of Senate District 18 to get ideas for making business growth and job creation a reality for the communities in this district. And if I am fortunate enough to earn the support of the voters on November 8th, I will continue to be their voice for economic progress at the Capitol next January and beyond.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorksy immediately praised the selection, saying that Mathis will put her history of “determination to get results, ask tough questions and strengthen the community” to work for District residents.

“While Republicans resort to partisan sniping and embrace an extreme tea party agenda, Liz Mathis continues to show real leadership that will keep our state moving forward,” she said. “Whether it is education for the next generation, creating jobs in communities across the state, or advocating for middle class families, Liz is ready to work for her constituents.”

Not surprisingly, Chad Olsen, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa — local GOP members selected Cindy Golding as their SD 18 nominee last week — was not impressed with the Democrats’ choice.

“Tonight the Democrats nominated a candidate who will be another go-along-to-get-along vote for a big-spending Senate Democrat majority that is hostile to the small businesses that create jobs in Linn County,” he said. “Marion and rural Linn County need a leader, not another follower in the Iowa Senate.”

Delegates at the special convention overwhelmingly chose Mathis (weighted vote total of 15,724.5 in favor to 5.5 abstaining). When the floor was opened for nomination of candidates from the County Central Committee, Mathis was the only individual brought forward. Gazette Columnist Todd Dorman described the process as rating slightly above boring.

The District’s seat became vacant earlier this month when Democrat Swati Dandekar chose to accept an appointment to the Iowa Utilities Board. Although the race for a single state Senate seat may seem fairly small potatoes (even in Iowa’s hyper-active grassroots political system), the race has drawn national attention because it could result in a 25-25 tie between Democrats and Republicans in the chamber. Since Republicans currently control both the Iowa House and the Governor’s Office, a Senate tie is viewed as an opportunity for the GOP to further their agenda. And although most discussion from both sides of the political aisle has been centered on the economy and jobs, a look at the legislation pushed by GOP lawmakers during the 2011 General Assembly shows that much deemed “Gronstalled,” a reference to Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstall (D-Council Bluffs), has been bills focused on social conservative issues — and specifically those directly impacting or related to women’s reproductive health and gay marriage.

House File 5, for instance, was the fifth bill proposed by House Republicans. It followed a bill establishing reviews and repeals of several executive branch programs and projects (set in place by Democrats in the two preceding administrations), another establishing a right to choose whether or not to purchase health care insurance (with a nod to federal health reforms), a third that mandated a right-to-work notification be placed on all Iowa economic development materials (a backwards nod to unionized workers), and a fourth bill that provided a reduction in individual income tax rates (which never made it out of a GOP-controlled subcommittee).

House File 5 specifically targeted abortions and explicitly sought to prohibit all late-term abortions in the state. The only exceptions were if the mother’s life was deemed to be immediately in danger or if such a procedure was “necessary to preserve the life of the unborn child.”

House File 153 sought to define life as beginning at conception, effectively ending all access to abortion and most birth control. House File 192 sought to regulate use of abortion-producing medications. House File 439 required government and public reporting of court waivers granted to minors seeking abortions. House File 576, which later became House File 656, sought to prohibit any and all health insurance plans that included any abortion services from the state health benefit exchange. House File 657, a successor to HF 5, was also aimed at banning abortion.

Several bills responding to a 2009 unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court that a legislative limit on civil marriage amounted to a violation of the state’s equal protection clause were also introduced. While some were worded to directly end civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, others sought to change Iowa’s judicial branch. An example of a direct approach is House File 330, which directed county registrars not to grant marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. Likewise, House File 577 stated flatly that only a marriage between a male and female is valid in the state, and that the court “shall not have appellate jurisdiction over the laws determining the validity of a marriage in the state.”

An example of an indirect response was House File 441, which wanted to give members of the General Assembly an explicit right to intervene in court cases in which “the constitutionality, legality, or interpretation of a statute is at issue.”

In addition, of the 16 joint resolutions proposed by the Iowa House, nine were related to either abortion, health care reform or the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling on marriage.