Strict scrutiny: Iowans should reject Public Measure 1

There are two things you won’t find in Iowa’s Constitution.

One is an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Consulting the “Debates of the Iowa Constitution,” which chronicles the writing of the 1857 constitution, turns up little explanation as to why it was not included. On Jan. 31, 1857, a delegate from Centerville, Amos Harris, offered language giving Iowans “the right to bear arms in defense of their persons, property …”

“The question was taken and the amendment was not agreed to,” according to the debates.

The U.S. Constitution already offered protections in the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You also won’t find, among the Iowa Constitution’s provisions and amendments, any language dictating to the courts how they must judge the constitutionality of laws passed by the General Assembly. There are no judicial handcuffs that lock future judges and justices into striking down the laws of tomorrow based on the political winds blowing today.

Now comes Public Measure 1, which is on the ballot in Iowa this fall. Its supporters have sought to portray it as simply adding gun rights to the state constitution. But its language reveals it will do far more than that. It’s been called “the Second Amendment on steroids” for good reason.

Public Measure 1 states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

It's the last sentence that packs a punch, for Iowans today and in future generations. And it’s the reason Iowans should reject Public Measure 1.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of review used to judge the constitutionality of laws. The state must prove it has a compelling interest in passing a law, and that the law is narrowly tailored to avoid infringement of constitutional protections. It’s a daunting test to pass.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter once said, “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.” When a court uses the strict scrutiny test, a law is usually struck down.

So the amendment would put Iowa’s few remaining gun regulations in jeopardy. But more importantly, it would hamstring efforts by future legislatures to pass gun laws demanded by the people of Iowa. It would lock in today’s pro-gun politics even if political winds in Iowa blow in a different direction. It’s an irresponsible attempt to make gun rights bulletproof, no matter what the future holds.

Only three states, Missouri, Louisiana and Alabama, have similar language in their constitutions. All three rank high among states for gun violence. Here, as in those states, passage of the amendment is sure to spawn costly litigation at the expense of taxpayers.

“This amendment is not just about enshrining the Second Amendment, right to bear arms, into the constitution. If that was the case, this amendment would read exactly the same as the Second Amendment, and it doesn’t,” Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks said this past week, according to reporting by The Gazette’s Emily Andersen.

“There are already very little gun restrictions in the state of Iowa, so this amendment is in no way being proposed in order to regain lost rights, but it will result in lost lives,” Maybanks said.

Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner also opposes the amendment.

“Had Public Measure No. 1 been written to mirror the Second Amendment, all of us would have supported it and we wouldn’t be here today,” Gardner said. “But as written, Public Measure No. 1 does nothing to make us safer. Rather, it endangers Iowans as it prohibits current and future common-sense gun laws by the use of the strict scrutiny language.”

We believe Iowans should look to another part of the Iowa Constitution for guidance, namely Article 1, Section 2.

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

Use that power to reject Public Measure 1. Early voting begins Oct. 19.

(319) 398-8262; editorial@thegazette.com