Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

GOP governor revives long push for restoring voting rights to Iowa felons

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds could act unilaterally to restore voting rights to felons, but says she wants a permanent solution that could not be rolled back by future governors.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, is promising to revive her quest to end the state's status as the only place in the country where convicted felons are permanently barred from voting.

She says she is optimistic that when the General Assembly convenes next week, her fellow Republicans in the majority will pass legislation starting a process lasting several years for giving voting rights back to felons as soon as they complete their sentences.

The franchise has been given back to more than 2 million ex-convicts in at least eight states during the past decade, fulfilling a top goal of civil rights groups, who view restoration of the vote as an essential part of making criminals who have done their time productive members of society. Resistance has come mostly from red states. Most freed felons are black or Hispanic and vote reliably Democratic.


In Iowa, the only way for a felon to win the right to vote after prison is to get the governor's permission.

Reynolds could act unilaterally, and groups including the Campaign Legal Center have been pressing her to issue a broad decree this month — theoretically allowing about 52,000 more people to participate Feb. 3 in the first-in-the-nation Democratic presidential caucuses.

But such an executive order could be reversed by a future governor, and Reynolds has said that to prevent uncertainty she is pursuing the cumbersome system for changing the state constitution. A constitutional amendment in Iowa must be passed twice by the Legislature, with an election in between, and then win approval by the voters in a statewide referendum. That means 2024 is the first election year when Iowa felons could participate.

Reynolds first tried to advance the proposal after taking office a year ago, but the bill stalled in the Senate.

The issue then was that blocs of Republicans could not agree on the parameters for who would get back the right to vote. Some wanted to keep rapists, murderers and other violent criminals off the list, which is the case in many states. Others wanted to make felons pay all fines, court fees and restitution before their rights are restored, which civil rights groups say is a de facto poll tax and would prompt them to oppose the bill.

"I believe it's the right thing to do. And it's one of my priorities. Sometimes you don't get it the first year when you talk about it," Reynolds told the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "I think it's the right thing to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to make the case. And I feel pretty confident that we can get them there."


Read More

Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less