Education and taxes are targets for Iowa GOP majority in 2023

With strong majorities in both the House and Senate, Iowa Republicans are hoping to keep Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk piled high with bills to sign during the 2023 legislative session.

The 90th Iowa General Assembly kicks off Jan. 9 with a target end date of April 28. GOP lawmakers are expected to push through key agenda items that include changes to the tax code and K-12 education funding; however, a host of other topics will no doubt bring forth a vast array of proposals this year in Des Moines.

Due to decennial redistricting, O'Brien County is being represented by two fresh faces this year. District 5 Rep. Zach Dieken (R-Granville) and District 3 Sen. Lynn Evans (R-Aurelia) will be sworn in at the Statehouse next week for the first time. Both men are holding elected office for the first time after running unopposed in their respective districts during the November election.

Other changes in representation were also seen in Clay County. Northern parts of the county, including the City of Everly, are now in Senate District 5 and House District 6 represented by Sen. Dave Rowley (R-Spirit Lake) and Rep. John Wills (R-Spirit Lake), respectively. Central and southern parts of the county are now in Senate District 3 and House District 6 represented by Evans and Rep. Megan Jones (R-Sioux Rapids).

The Sentinel-News reached out to all five lawmakers in its coverage area to gauge their views on a variety of issues heading into the 2023 session. What follows are their responses.

CO2 pipelines have been a hot topic in northwest Iowa over the past year. Are you in favor of them? If not, do you support legislation that could possibly impede their construction? If so, what?

Zach Dieken: I am not in favor of the pipeline. I believe it to be a private company's attempt to make money off of a false premise that CO2 must be captured out of the atmosphere.

Our constitution in Iowa, and federally, already prohibit eminent domain to be used strictly for "public use," not for private gain. So these laws should simply be followed. However, on top of the constitution already prohibiting this type of abuse, I think it would be wise to strengthen the specific restrictions of eminent domain and even go as far as to outlaw the piping of high pressure CO2 in Iowa as it is a danger to the environment and the people.

Lynn Evans: Ethanol production has a positive impact on corn prices and it is a cleaner burning, less expensive option at the pump. The CO2 pipelines are a private venture and should be treated as such. One of the biggest controversies is the possible use of eminent domain to complete the projects. As a private venture, I do not believe that the use of eminent domain should apply in these circumstances. The Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution refers to eminent domain as private property taken for public use and the pipelines are not for "public use."

Megan Jones: Iowa House Rule 76 prohibits members from voting on legislation in which they have a direct financial impact. We rent several properties along proposed pipeline routes. As a result, I am conflicted out of voting on legislation related to the proposed carbon pipelines.

Dave Rowley: I am not in favor of the use of eminent domain in the case of the carbon pipelines. I support legislation to put this process on hold and legislation that defines the terms of "public good" and "public utility." I have been working with colleagues to clearly define how and when eminent domain can be used.

John Wills: It appears we will be doing some language that will strengthen our eminent domain language in Iowa Code. It is a very complex issue and we need to do something that will survive Supreme Court challenges. I supported a moratorium last year and I will support language again this year, but need to see the bill before I can say for sure I would support it.

Do you support any changes to the current tax code? If yes, what and why?

ZD: Somehow preventing the increase of property taxes would be nice. I otherwise support the lowering of taxes in general but it seems the legislators have been doing that already.

LE: I anticipate that one of the focuses of this session will be continued tax reform with a focus on property taxes. I am in favor of lowering or, at the very least, keeping property tax increases in check. This needs to be approached with caution as cities, counties and public schools currently rely on property tax as the basis of their budgets' revenue.

MJ: Yes! Now that we have phased out retirement income tax and have dramatically cut income taxes, the next on the list is property taxes. Now, admittedly, there is only so much we can do here because property taxes are largely dependent on local governing entities. But I am certainly up for exploring what we can do. People are very worried about unsustainable and unpredictable property taxes.

DR: Iowa is one of the highest states when it comes to property taxes, and we need to explore why this is. I support a review of our state's property tax system and would support a change to the code if that change will benefit our communities, preserve local control and optimize our quality of life. I support lowering income and property taxes for all, provided we don't sacrifice services our communities need.

JW: I have been very active and supportive of tax code changes in the past and I would like to see more tax reform including property tax reform and other taxes. Property taxes are the No. 2 issue, after education issues, that I heard about on the campaign trail. Since property taxes are a local tax, if we do anything with them we need to keep in mind that the local governments need to be able to fund their priorities and issues just as much as the state government.

The governor's plan to create tax-funded scholarships for use at K-12 private schools will once again get attention this year. Do you support this? Why or why not?

ZD: I support my tax dollars being used for my child's education specifically. The misnomer is that we need to be support systems when we need to be supporting the students who are being educated regardless of where they go. I want the tax dollar of the parent to follow the student.

LE: I am not opposed to the previous ESA bill that was run last session as it only affected approximately 2 percent of the student population statewide and it provided for an option for parents. What I am concerned about is providing schools a level of funding and resources needed on an annual basis so that they are able to keep up with inflation and providing the level of education that we traditionally have come to expect in this state.

MJ: I am certainly open to all educational reform ideas. I have heard, however, the Governor's proposal will be different this year. I don't know the details and I haven't seen a copy of the bill, but I am certainly willing to take a look at it.

DR: I support the right for parents to ultimately decide where their child will attend school.

JW: I do support the plan and was the bill manager last year and probably will be again this year. I support giving parents a choice in where their child goes to school versus just having to send their child to a school based on their zip code. There are many issues I have heard about in this campaign year and school choice is one of them.

Critics of the governor's K-12 scholarship program have said it would detrimentally affect rural Iowa public schools. Do you agree? Why or why not?

ZD: I don't think it will because most families will continue to send their children to the public schools. If the public schools are doing well, the students will stay. Again, the misnomer is we need to keep certain systems afloat. It is the students that need to be funded. Who has the right to tell any parent they can't leave any school if that's what they deem is best for their child?

LE: Critics of last year's ESA bill push that it is a detriment to the public schools. I don't necessarily agree.

First, last year's bill provided for a limited number of scholarships based on financial need and language in the bill stated that private schools were to accept and serve students with special needs. It only affected approximately 2 percent of the student population statewide.

Secondly, if a school district is working with the families and the community in providing the best education possible that meets the needs of the students, there should be little motivation for a family to want to leave the public school for a private option. We have yet to see this session's bill(s) and any changes that may be proposed from the last session.

MJ: Again, I think the proposal will look different this year, so it is hard to say how and if it will impact public and/or rural schools.

DR: I do not view this as a detriment to our rural schools. The scholarship program affects 1 percent of the total student enrollment in Iowa of almost 500,000 students. Students enrolled in Individual Educational Plans make up an additional 1 percent eligible for the scholarship program. There is a need for school choice in some Iowa school districts for many different reasons. Our northwest Iowa districts have outstanding public schools, teachers, administrators and school boards that continue to focus their resources on our children's education.

JW: I do not agree. I look at Sioux County here in northwest Iowa. They have perhaps the highest density of private schools per capita than anywhere else in the state. Yet their private schools and public schools are thriving. Their public schools are often among the best in the state and the nation each year, and they have not seen any school close or be hurt by the high density of private schools there.

With Roe v. Wade overturned by SCOTUS, do you support any new laws further restricting abortions in Iowa? If so, what and why? Do you believe anything will be proposed this session?

ZD: Since abortion is the murdering of children, it should be abolished and outlawed. We didn't restrict owning another person as a slave, we abolished it and made it illegal. Equal protection for children under the law is the goal.

LE: The responsibility for abortion laws is now back in the hands of the states. I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception and I support restricting access to abortion in Iowa. I fully expect pro-life bills will be presented after the courts in Iowa have made their final rulings on the "Heartbeat Bill" and subsequent appeals.

MJ: I am hearing folks want to let the dust settle here as we have a lot of court decisions and procedural moves up in the air right now. But, ultimately, I want to save as many babies as we can.

DR: I am pro-life. I support new laws that will guarantee an unborn human being life and defend the basic right to be born and to live. Recently a Polk County Judge ruled against lifting the injunction that is preventing the enactment of the Heartbeat Bill. The issue remains in the courts. There are no new proposals I am aware of at this time.

JW: I believe in life from conception to a natural death. At this point the Iowa Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the state's heartbeat bill that was struck down several years ago. Some things changed when Roe v. Wade was overturned and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on another abortion case. Right now they are hearing the case on the heartbeat bill and pending what happens with that I support further language or improved language. I do believe that some bills will be proposed but I do not think a lot of those bills, if any, will receive support until the Supreme Court has made their ruling here in Iowa.

Iowans in 2022 voted to explicitly add the right to "keep and bear arms" to the state constitution. Do you support any proposals expanding gun laws? If so, what and why?

ZD: I don't think suppressors should be registered under the National Firearms Act, because I believe they are. That is more of a federal issue, though, I think. I supported the amendment being added to the constitution.

LE: United States citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Iowa's constitution did not have similar language. I was excited that the voters corrected this omission. The amendment that will be enacted helps protect our rights from potential federal government overreach that could restrict a citizen's right to defend themselves and their families. I would expect to see a bill or bills addressing and restricting "red flag" laws during this session. I support restricting "red flag" laws in principle.

MJ: I am pro-Second Amendment and am eager to look into new ways to protect this constitutional right. The conversations I am hearing the most about revolve around parking lots. When people can leave them in their cars, if they can legally drive through a certain parking lot while carrying, etc.

DR: The addition of the 2nd amendment to our state constitution won by a margin of 66 percent. The people of Iowa clearly are concerned with the federal government's interest in restricting or eliminating gun ownership. I support our constitutional right to own a firearm and for providing training and education for law abiding citizens.

JW: I think there are a few gun laws that are a bit onerous in Iowa. For instance, a person who can legally carry a concealed gun in Iowa, when picking their child up at school must stop outside the school grounds, take their gun, unload it, put it into a safe compartment, pick their child up from school and then reverse the situation when they are off school grounds. It is a felony to not do that procedure. We need to make it easier for people to do things in Iowa and not hamper them with regulations and laws. That isn't just in regards to gun laws but it includes a whole gamut of things.

Do you support changing state law to loosen restrictions on the use of marijuana? Why or why not?

ZD: I have come to believe that marijuana can be useful medically. I do not support the legalization of recreational use, but would be open to legislation expanding its medical use.

LE: I do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana.

MJ: The federal government needs to act here. If this is going to be left up to the states, fine, but the federal government needs to make that clear.

DR: I do not support legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The use of marijuana has always been a stepping-stone psychoactive drug that is easily abused. The states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use are seeing increases in distracted driving, mental health issues, physiological effects and brain impairment. Child usage has also increased. All of these factors make marijuana more harmful than most people think. It also creates workforce issues. Employers I have visited with in other states are seeing fewer eligible workers due to drug use and absenteeism. While some think this is a source of tax revenue, it comes with an unacceptable societal and financial cost.

JW: I do not. First of all, it is still against the law on the federal side of things. While the federal government has decided not to enforce the law, I have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the U.S. government and the state government.

Second, there are some conflicting peer-reviewed studies as to the effect of marijuana. Almost all of the studies show a real change in the function of the brain in adolescents whose brain has not fully developed. That change is not clearly understood but I do know that the human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 25 years old.

Finally, many of the mass shooters and killers were heavy smokers of marijuana and while marijuana is considered a drug that mellows people out, there is evidence that it causes schizophrenia when it is used heavily at a young age. I do not think it is a drug that is a simple one to understand and until the federal government changes the law there aren't a lot of studies that will happen.

Name three areas Democrats and Republicans can find common ground during the 2022 legislative session.

ZD: I will have to get back to you on this one. I honestly don't know until I get down there myself and see if there is anything.

LE: No response.

MJ: Typically, around 80-90 percent of the legislation we pass is bipartisan so it is hard to pick just three, because it is an overwhelming majority of the bills we pass. Community colleges, adoption and second amendment rights are some of my favorite to see on the voting board with a bunch of green lights.

DR: Workforce development, to address the shortfall of eligible employees; water quality and conservation; and strengthen Iowa's rural economy through encouraging entrepreneurship, broadband expansion and supporting our regional cooperatives.

JW: We will find common ground on many things. In fact we are generally together around 92 percent of the time. Things we will be soundly behind are workforce development, mental health and childcare.

Are there any issues of personal priority to you that you plan to address this year? Is there any legislation you intend to introduce? Explain.

ZD: Abortion, issues pertaining to the DNR, stopping the CO2 pipelines, in general doing anything we can as a state to push back against the federal government.

LE: I will be working to expand access to mental health care services in rural Iowa and increasing access to affordable daycare for families. I will be co-sponsoring a Sheriff First Act that will require any non-Iowa law enforcement officer or agency to get written permission from the county sheriff prior to executing any arrest, search or seizure on an Iowa citizen.

Additionally, it is past time that Iowa honors Pvt. Martin Treptow with a monument on the State Capitol grounds. Treptow was a young barber working in Cherokee at the time of his enlistment to serve our country in World War I. He gave his life in France on July 28, 1918 at the age of 24 while carrying a message from one unit to another. When his body was recovered, they found on him a diary with some of his writings. These writings have come to be known as the now famous Private Treptow's Pledge. Pvt. Treptow was honored by President Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address in 1981. I will be working for the construction of this monument.

DR: I plan to introduce legislation to limit the use of eminent domain for non-public ventures. Business and economic development opportunities, building upon the strengths we have in rural Iowa, policies to rebuild our available workforce. Addressing Medicaid reimbursement rates to support healthcare services in rural Iowa. Working towards a financial balance between state and county services and how they are supported through taxation.

I recently filed the "Across County Titling Bill" in the Senate that expands motor vehicle services from county specific to statewide. I'm working on legislation to limit the use of eminent domain in the case of carbon pipelines. I'm also working on legislation to increase the clothing allowance for children in foster family care.

MJ: A few years ago, we established a platform by which we could, in time, make every adoption free in our state. It's going to take a while to get there, but I am eager to push this program along. We use the same infrastructure that the State Public Defender's office uses to reimburse local attorneys for defense work but for adoptions. It's a win for everyone. We use a government agency that already exists but for a new purpose, attorneys like doing adoptions and getting away from criminal work for a bit, and most importantly, we help a kid complete a family.

JW: I have introduced bills on teacher licensure, non-compete agreements for workers, and introducing the Convention of States resolution.