Ups, downs, and uncertainties after legislative session adjourns

There are no sweeter words to a state legislator (or a Statehouse reporter) than the words, “Adjourned Sine Die.” Literally, “sine die” means “without a day” in Latin — as in, without a day picked to resume a meeting of an assembly. Loosely translated among legislators (and Statehouse reporters,) “sine die” means that the legislative session is done — as in, let’s get the heck out of here.

The 90th General Assembly adjourned Sine Die on Thursday. Opinions on the overall impact of the 2023 legislative session vary depending on whose official statement you’re reading. Republicans and their allies will claim that they followed the lead of Gov. Reynolds and her Big Kim Energy to ensure our state stays in great shape. Democrats and their allies insist that Queen Kim and her legislative courtiers are turning Iowa into a wasteland.

To me, the legislative session has looked like each of the previous six sessions since my side (evil Republicans) gained (and grew) their trifecta in state government. There was legislation that I liked, legislation I hated, and legislation that left me with mixed feelings.

SCHOOL CHOICE FINALLY WINS — SO DO IOWA FAMILIES

School choice finally got its long-sought win. After a momentous 2022 primary that saw six incumbent House Republicans ousted by their GOP challengers, none by a tiny margin, the House Republican caucus finally secured enough votes to pass the Students First Act.

Beginning May 31, eligible families will be able to apply for an Education Savings Account to use their child’s individual portion of state education funding at an institution that meets their needs. School funding can finally follow the student, not vice versa. It will have a direct, immediate impact on many Iowans, including family members of mine, for whom the decision to send their children to private school wasn’t simply an educational choice, but a financial one.

REPUBLICAN POWER MOVE DOESN’T IMPRESS MANY REPUBLICANS

I ask myself one important question every now and then in an attempt to be as objective as possible: Would l like this if the Democrats were doing it?

With the electoral beatings they’ve taken lately, it’s hard to imagine Iowa Democrats having a majority in any area of state government. But I’m happy to imagine for a moment that the roles were reversed. If Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature, a majority of the Executive Council including the governor’s office, and governors of their party had picked a majority of the sitting Iowa Supreme Court justices, what would I think of a bill that substantially limits the amount of information that a lone Republican State Auditor could access?

I would hate it. It would seem nothing more to me than a partisan power grab. As such, I cannot find any reason to think that Senate File 478, which blocks the Iowa State Auditor (the lone Democrat on Iowa’s Executive Council) from accessing all kinds of information including individual tax returns, is either worthwhile or necessary. I simply can’t get behind it — period.

PROPERTY TAX GETS NEAR-UNANIMOUS CHANGE

Gov. Reynolds signed into law House File 718, which passed one vote short of unanimously. As written by Erin Murphy, The Gazette’s Des Moines Bureau chief, the new law “seeks to achieve a reduction in future property tax growth primarily by merging most local taxes into one general levy, then installing mechanisms that reduce that levy if taxable valuation grows beyond a certain level.”

No bill is a quick fix-all for Iowa property owners who opened up their last assessments and subsequently found themselves checking their pulse — my own little condo jumped in value — but the passage of HF 718 nevertheless gives Democrats and Republicans alike a win. All (but one) of them now get to go home to their constituents and say “We heard you, we share your concern, and we’ve done something about it.”

Fun fact about the property tax bill: it requires that a public bonding vote, such as the $312 million doozy that the Cedar Rapids Community School District will ask voters to approve, is held on the same date as a November general election. No longer can bond issues be put to a vote in a month not typically associated with an election, when voter turnout is much lower. Making sure that bond bills will see greater voter participation earns my thumbs-up.

CURING THE EVILS OF THE WORLD WITH LEGISLATION?

As of the deadline for this column, Gov. Reynolds hasn’t signed SF496, which does three major things: Prohibits books in school depicting sex acts as defined in Iowa Code 702.17 (please read 702.17 yourself so I don’t have to write what that entails,) prohibits instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation through sixth grade, and requires notification of parents if their child requests to be recognized as a gender different from their sex.

Reynolds has, however, signed legislation requiring use of school bathrooms and locker rooms to be based on a person’s sex, regardless of gender identity. This is one of several bills centered on gender identity issues, but for the sake of print space, I’m focusing on just these two for this column.

I make no secret of my reservations about gender ideology. I’ve written quite candidly about it, for example, in regard to policies passed last year by the Linn-Mar Community School District.

But I also tend to believe, to paraphrase a dead politician, that we delude ourselves if we think we can cure the evils of the world with legislation — including some of the legislation passed this session. For instance, I understand that while using a bathroom that corresponds with one’s sex is a no-brainer to the vast majority of people, some who have already assumed and have long lived under a different gender identity will find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

It’s worth considering that there’s a common trait between policies that allow a non-gender-confirming student to use any bathroom of their choice, and policies that require use of a bathroom that coordinates with one’s sex: Both prioritize the comfort of one group of people at the expense of the other.

So, what’s the solution? Is there one? Does state law even allow for the possibility of creating a third type of restroom that non-gender-conforming people could be expected to use, allowing male and female restrooms to continue as protected spaces? Would legislative Democrats be remotely agreeable to changing state law to do so? Or would they continue to balk as they did all session long?

SKEPTICAL OF CONTENT … AND OF BANNING IT

Having thoroughly read the legal definition of “sex act” in Iowa Code, I’m not going to cry over the content that will be removed from school libraries. If anything, the now-prohibited books will be more eagerly sought-after by curious students and indignant adults, who I hope will exercise at least a modicum of discretion before shoving books like “This Book is Gay” or “Gender Queer” or anything else involving masturbation or oral copulation in the hands of their 12-year-olds.

But do I feel that generally banning a book outright is a good idea? No.

However, should anyone insist that removal of books with sex acts is an “attack on LGBTQ people” as we’ve heard relentlessly from Democrats, one could wonder if they are acknowledging a degree of licentiousness in LGBTQ culture. Even many conservatives have no qualms with the fact that some people are attracted to members of the same sex, or even that some intrinsically feel of a different gender than their sex. But if appreciating that means school LGBTQ clubs inviting grown men in skimpy leotards to dance like strippers for students as young as 14, as happened at Ankeny High School last school year, one should expect some pushback.

DANGEROUS CHILD LABOR? NAH.

Meanwhile, if Democrats want to contend that 13-year-olds are old enough to assume an entirely different identity that they keep from their parents or read books involving the use of dildos, I’m unclear on why they think 16 years is too young for a server with written permission from their parents to pour a beer at a restaurant, work until 9 p.m., or start training for some skilled trades through school programming. Does Senate File 542, the youth employment bill, live up to all the hysteria claiming that it “puts Iowa children in danger?” Nah.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com