Iowa GOP using 'fear' to 'unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state': analysis

Republican legislators in Iowa passed intentionally vague laws that have spurred the removal of books from school libraries and classrooms.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law in May a requirement for schools to remove books that depict a "sex act," a vaguely worded statutory term that that Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent says "has now helped unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state."

"Their vagueness is the point," Sargent writes. "When GOP-controlled state legislatures escalated the passage of laws in 2022 and 2023 restricting school materials addressing sex, gender and race, critics warned that their hazy drafting would prod educators to err on the side of censorship. Uncertain whether books or classroom discussions might run afoul of their state’s law, education officials might decide nixing them would be the 'safer' option."

"What’s happening in Iowa right now thoroughly vindicates those fears," Sargent adds.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The Iowa City Community School District issued a list of 68 books removed from the shelves to comply with the law, including The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, school districts in other parts of the state have removed such books as “1984” by George Orwell and “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut.

“Many literary classics have sex in them,” said Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America. “But now the term ‘sex act’ is turning into a blunt instrument to remove scores of books that have all kinds of literary merit and cultural significance.”

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Minnesota legal officials looking to prosecute ICE agents involved in the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good may be hindered by MAGA-leaning states, according to a new report.

Lawmakers lack some basic details for a prosecution case against those responsible for the deaths of Pretti and Good. Though Minnesota officials had made efforts to verify the identities of those involved, Donald Trump's administration has put up a fight and refused to comply with the state.

Salon writer Andy Mannix shared that the admin had "rebuffed" requests from Minnesota lawmakers, and that the chances of getting any detail from MAGA-friendly states are slim in which they might reside are slim.

Mannix wrote, "The first test for prosecutors, if they file charges, would be to prove the agents don’t qualify for immunity through the Constitution’s supremacy clause, a rarely invoked legal doctrine that protects federal officers from state prosecutions if they’re acting lawfully and within the scope of their duties.

"Even if they survive such a fight, the cases could be dogged by a series of logistical challenges. [Hennepin County Attorney Mary] Moriarty, who has been leading the investigations, has decided not to seek reelection and will leave office at the end of the year. That means whoever wins the election for her seat in November could inherit the prosecutions."

Mannix also suggested Minnesota officials will face an uphill battle in prosecuting specific ICE agents beyond a supremacy clause issue. Minnesota prosecutors needing information from potentially MAGA-leaning states for their investigation.

Mannix added, "In addition to not having the names of the agents, prosecutors don’t know where those agents are now. Minnesota may need to extradite them, potentially from a MAGA-leaning state that may balk at sending them to Hennepin County to stand trial."

Legal experts believe there could be further problems after a supremacy clause ruling. "Will the federal government or other states cooperate with that? I think the answer to that is sort of iffy," Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, said.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

For all of his saber-rattling at Iran, Donald Trump is desperately looking for a way out of the war he initiated four weeks ago now that he is not finding it to be the cakewalk he anticipated, according to MS NOW’s Jonathan Lemire.

On Friday morning, the “Morning Joe” co-host reported that a recent counterattack by Iran drove home to the president that the leadership of on the Middle Eastern country has the upper hand — and he may have painted himself into a corner.

“The president, yeah, he wanted a quick victory, he wanted to put another scalp on the wall,” Lemire told the panel. “Like, you know, he wanted to have another win like Maduro. He's not gotten that. And now he's playing this game.”

“There was very little surprise yesterday,” he said of Trump’s press availability. “He extended the deadline. Again. He doesn't want to do this in terms of that obliteration that he keeps threatening. And I think he was really spooked when Iran hit the Qatari LNG plant because that showed him that they have a big say over the energy crisis, energy markets, now and potentially for years to come.”

“He's looking for an off-ramp, but at the same time, keep sending ground troops to the region, at least as a negotiating tactic, threatening he may go in with boots on the ground, which of course would be a real escalation, potentially very bloody for Americans,” he predicted.

- YouTube youtu.be

Will California’s gubernatorial candidates realize that they could split the vote enough in the primary to create a Republican victory?

The 2016 Washington State Treasurer’s race offers a cautionary tale. All candidates competed together in the primary under similar rules to California. Three strong Democratic candidates split their vote nearly evenly, totaling 51.6%. But because there were only two Republicans to divide their smaller 48.4% share, the November ballot was Republican vs Republican. Washington got a Republican state Treasurer despite Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 16 points in the state.

The same could happen this year in California, where eight Democrats are running for governor. All three Democrats running to succeed a highly-respected Washington State treasurer were smart and capable, with strong endorsements and relevant experience. I remember my own struggle to decide between them. But when they and the two Republicans all split nearly evenly, the November election ended up being Republican vs Republican even though the Democrats drew more total votes.

The reverse happened in 2022, in California’s solidly Republican 4th State Senate district. Six Republican candidates split 59 percent of the vote. But because there were only two Democrats running, two Democrats faced off in November.

In the California governor’s race, Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are even or ahead of leading Democrats in recent polls, despite combining for less than a third of the vote. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, former Fox News host Hilton is at 17% Riverside County Sheriff Bianco at 16%, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell and former Congresswoman Katie Porter both at 13%, and progressive philanthropist and former hedge fund head Tom Steyer at 10%. Former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra follows at 5%, and former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose mayor and tech industry favorite Matt Mahan at 4%. Former state controller Betty Yee and former state Superintendent of Public Education Tony Thurmond draw 1%, with the rest undecided.

With candidates this tightly packed, it’s easy to see how the Democrats could divide the vote just enough to make the Republicans the sole candidates on the November ballot, even though both are strong Trump supporters in a state where Trump has just 28% support.

Were these Arnold Schwarzenegger Republicans, the stakes would be different. But both Hilton and Bianco are full MAGA Republicans, who would make it far more difficult for the largest state in the country to resist the administration’s programs and policies. California Democrats can’t take those risks.

The dilemma comes from a flawed top-two primary where everyone runs simultaneously. Ranked choice voting is vastly more democratic, encouraging candidates to run positive campaigns and collaborate with competitors who share their values, while entirely eliminating the division or spoiler effects. Even traditional partisan primaries avoid the possibility of a majority party being excluded from the November ballot. But because California’s current system passed as a constitutional amendment (backed by major Republican donor Charles Munger Jr.), the legislature would need a two thirds majority to place it on the ballot for potential repeal, and can’t do so in time for the 2026 elections.

It makes the situation harder that this is such a highly qualified Democratic group, as was true with the Washington State Treasurer candidates. So it’s up to them and to the voters to solve the situation. State Democratic chair Rusty Hicks has encouraged lower-polling candidates to drop out so they wouldn’t be on the ballot. But only one did before the filing deadline. Hicks is now commissioning a series of six polls to show where voters stand and pressure lower-polling Democrats to leave the race, even as he says there’s a bit more time for them to try to make the case and raise their standings.

If California is to avoid risking a Republican governor, most of the lower-polling candidates will need to do this well before ballots arrive at the beginning of May, for the June 2 primary. And voters, donors, and endorsers will need to heed the standings to make sure this happens. Given Washington State’s lesson, the first step is recognizing the danger.

Paul Loeb’s books on citizen activism, like Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, have over 350,000 copies in print, with a new edition of The Impossible coming out this Sept. See paulloeb.org.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}