What Is It About Traffic Cameras?

March 20, 2012

Many Iowans support traffic cameras because of the claim that they will improve traffic safety. But for folks all across the state–and country–who have lived under the daily scrutiny of traffic cameras, it quickly becomes a different story. Fifteen states have already banned the use of traffic cameras.

Here’s why the ACLU of Iowa would like to see traffic cameras go:

Dubious Safety Data

The safety data that is often cited is actually conflicting. In some places, for example, traffic cameras have led to an increase in rear-end accidents as drivers rush to slam on the breaks to avoid an automatically generated ticket.
Just as a matter of common sense, traffic cameras are unlikely to protect against many of the most dangerous drivers. A traffic camera is far less likely to stop a drunk driver than flesh-and-blood police. Also, because the citation information collected by cameras doesn’t get reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation (unlike speeding tickets issued by officers), it isn’t effective in flagging repeat high-speeders.

Due Process Issues

We’re concerned that car owners get ticketed, rather than the actual driver (a child, a spouse, etc.). There is also a problem of insufficient notice w
hen cities fail to post signs in areas where drivers are approaching traffic cameras.It seems unfair that traffic cameras ticket small offenses, such as stopping slightly over the white line—offenses officers are unlikely to ticket.

We’re troubled by the potential for localities to become reliant on the revenue the cameras generate. Such reliance has led to misuse in other states, where some cities have shortened yellow lights to increase violations and increase revenue.

Creating a Surveillance Camera Culture

Perhaps more than anything, we oppose the “Big Brother” approach to governing that traffic cameras embody. Traffic cameras allow for government monitoring of our driving behaviors at a scale that exceeds what is possible when using traditional traffic enforcement methods. Some key legislators have described them as a step toward a “surveillance camera culture” that should give us all pause.

Challenges In Supporting Free Speech and the Occupy Movement

December 28, 2011

The Occupy movement in Iowa has posed challenges for supporters and opponents alike, especially in Des Moines and Iowa City. ACLU state offices across the country have wrestled with how much to be involved with the protests, which carry a general message of anger at Wall Street and overall economic inequity.

Traditionally, the ACLU has wholeheartedly supported civil disobedience of unjust and unconstitutional laws. But the “occupiers” require special consideration because they are not breaking laws related to their message—those on finance or banking–but instead are challenging laws about public spaces and safety.

Regardless, the ACLU of Iowa is doing its part to make sure that, within the law, this form of free speech is supported. We have been working with Occupy protestors, providing legal advice to “occupiers” and providing them with written information on their legal rights.

The situation in Iowa and elsewhere is about to become more challenging. Local protestors are increasingly pressed to choose between staying warm and obeying city regulations on electrical usage, fire codes, and public health issues. Moreover, “occupiers” from around the country have been invited to come here during the Iowa caucuses.

The ACLU, as much as any organization, understands that political discourse and energy are essential to a healthy democracy. We will continue to do what it can to this cornerstone of freedom—no matter what the message and no matter how long the protestors press to make their message known.

ACLU of Iowa Announces Eight New Board Members

September 19, 2011

The ACLU of Iowa statewide board has appointed eight new members to its 22-member statewide board. They are:

  • Ann Bovbjerg of Iowa City. With a background in biology, Bovbjerg has been an active volunteer in the League of Women Voters as well as various school and city-related task forces.
  • Nathan Handler of Iowa City. A student at University of Iowa preparing for medical school, Handler has volunteered at a free health clinic and has been an activist in civil liberties issues.
  • David Hoffman of Ames. A retired chemistry professor, Hoffman also is a community volunteer.
  • Judith Hunter of Grinnell. A writing teacher at Grinnell College, Hunter has also served on a number of non-profit boards involving education and political awareness.
  • Alan Koslow of West Des Moines. A cardiologist, Koslow has a long history of involvement, including organizing with the March of Dimes, volunteering his medical services in international crisis, and activism in politics and civil rights.
  • Joan Masover, an investment advisor in Fairfield, comes from a family with a long history of volunteerism, including her father volunteering legal work for the ACLU. She is active in Rotary and local musical organizations.
  • Alejandro Orozco of Des Moines. A native of Mexico, Orozco now serves as Vice President / Community Development Officer at Bankers Trust. Orozco has also been involved in community organizing and fighting human trafficking.
  • Sandy Vopalka of Indianola. Vopalka has a long history of LGBT activism, including founding Equality Iowa, and the CENTER, a LGBT resource center in downtown Des Moines.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization that fights to advance civil liberties for all. It is the state affiliate of the national American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU of Iowa works in the courts, the legislature, and through public awareness to uphold everyone’s civil liberties, not matter who they are or what they believe. It has worked to assure the right of all Iowans—from atheists to devout Christians, from labor unions to businesspeople, and more—to make sure our constitutional rights are preserved.

Brutal Waterloo Beating Death Tragic Evidence of Bigotry In Iowa

The following statement on August 25, 2011, can be attributed to Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ACLU of Iowa:

“The brutal beating death of Marcellus Andrews is further evidence of the existence of hatred and bigotry in our state.

Whether the ultimate charges brought include an allegation of a hate crime, it appears from information reported in the media that the violence of that night was accompanied by anti-gay hatred and prejudice. The ACLU of Iowa remains steadfast in its decades-long commitment to human dignity and equality for all people, including young Iowans like Mr. Andrews.”

ACLU of Iowa and Others Seek Details on Police Phone Tracking

August 3, 2011

The ACLU of Iowa has sent out requests to the police departments in Iowa’s five largest cities, asking each to release information on cell phone location tracking data used to monitor Iowans.

Freedom of Information requests for the data have been sent to police in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, Iowa City, and Davenport.

The requests are part of a coordinated national information-seeking campaign by 34 ACLU state affiliates across the nation. The effort is one of the largest coordinated information act requests in American history. The requests, being filed under the states’ Freedom of Information Act laws, are an effort to strip away the secrecy surrounding law enforcement use of cell phone tracking capabilities.

“We are concerned about why and how law enforcement is using this highly sensitive, personal data,” said Randall Wilson, Legal Director for the ACLU of Iowa. “Every Iowan with a cell phone is susceptible to tracking by the government. When people are being tracked, we want to know if there is probable cause and if a warrant has been obtained. Information of this nature is prone to abuse.”

Wilson said while cell phone tracking can be a powerful tool in fighting crime, if abused it can be another intrusion by government into personal privacy. “If we want privacy and freedom from domestic surveillance, we’ve got to ask questions about what’s happening,” Wilson said.

Law enforcement agencies are being asked for information including:

  • Whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to access cell phone location data
  • Statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data
  • How much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones
  • Other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data

Law enforcement’s use of cell phone location data has become increasingly controversial. Just last week, the general counsel of the National Security Agency suggested to members of Congress that the NSA might have the authority to collect the location information of American citizens inside the U.S. Today’s effort by the ACLU is one of the first steps to learn the extent of the problems.

Congress is considering the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act, a bill supported by the ACLU that would require police to get a warrant to obtain personal location information. The bill would protect location data and require customer consent for telecommunications companies to collect location data.

ACLU of Iowa Wins Family Leave for Same-Sex Spouse

Teresa Heck, left, applied to take leave in order to care of her spouse, Rebecca Andrews, in her struggle with ovarian cancer.

Today (Wednesday, July 20, 2011) the ACLU of Iowa announces another victory for equality on behalf of same-sex couples. This latest breakthrough came on behalf an Iowa prison guard who was denied family medical leave because her spouse was of the same sex. Her ordeal is being presented to Congress today as a prime example of the hardships that result from discrimination against legally married same-sex couples.

“This is a victory for fairness and equality for all legally married Iowans,” said Randall Wilson, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa. “It also sets a precedent for other state agencies, making it clear that discriminating against workers based on sexual orientation is not acceptable.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protects many employees, including state workers, with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for serious family-related problems such as medical emergencies.

However, when Teresa Heck, who works as a prison guard for the Iowa Department of Corrections, applied to take leave in order to care of her spouse, Rebecca Andrews, in her struggle with ovarian cancer, Heck was denied leave under FMLA. Instead, Heck had to take vacation and her own sick time to get time off to care for the seriously ill Andrews, who continues to battle cancer.

The Iowa Department of Corrections denied Heck’s request, saying it felt bound to follow the restrictions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the recognition of a same sex marriage. Heck tried unsuccessfully to grieve the denial through the Department. The ACLU of Iowa agreed to take Heck’s case and brought the dispute to the attention of the Iowa Attorney General for a review of state policy. Following that contact, Heck Wednesday was informed by her supervisor that she would now be granted family leave.

“Caring for a spouse who has a life-threatening illness is difficult enough,” says Wilson. “Facing discrimination that complicates your efforts only makes it worse.”

Wilson says that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) promotes prejudice against legally married same-sex couples. “The culprit here is DOMA, which unconstitutionally discriminates against people in same sex marriages in very cruel ways.” Wilson said. Wilson noted that in this case, Iowa was not bound to follow federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled previously that the state cannot discriminate against same sex married couples.

Meanwhile, the Washington office of the ACLU is presenting a statement today to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of a congressional hearing on the harm that DOMA has caused to same-sex couples since the act’s passage in 1996. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley is a ranking member on that committee.

The statement is being presented because The Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598 and H.R. 116) legislation is pending in both the Senate and the House. This act would repeal DOMA in its entirety, as well as provide all married couples certainty that regardless of where they travel or move in the country, they would not be treated as strangers under federal law.

Heck and Andrews, who live in the Iowa City area, have been together for 13 years. In April, Andrews was diagnosed with a serious form of ovarian cancer. Heck applied for leave under FMLA to care for Andrews and to be able to drive her to doctors’ appointments and surgeries. There were two specific incidents during this time that if Heck wasn’t available to care for Andrews, she likely would have died.

Heck says she’s relieved to now get family leave. “I feel like I was being kicked when I was already down,” says Heck. “I defend the citizens of the State of Iowa every day. And when I need some defense in return, I’m told no. Especially when it involves a loved one, that really hurts.”

Legislative Update: Done!

June 30, 2011

Minnesota entered a government shutdown, but not Iowa! Just before 4:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon, the Iowa General Assembly voted on two final bills and resolved to adjourn the 2011 legislative session. There were cheers from both legislators and lobbyists.

Revictimizing Iowa Rape and Incest Victims (HHS Budget Bill HF649)

After all of the other budget bills had been agreed on and even voted on, a single issue blocked any remaining compromise–anti-choice extremists’ refusal to allow women who get health insurance through Medicaid to be covered for abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Not only was this suggestion shockingly callous, it would also result in a violation of federal Medicaid law and risk Iowa’s losing Medicaid funding. (The Des Moines Register had a spot-on editorial on this today.) Lengthy negotiations went on late into the night this week, with leadership and members of the Heath and Human Services conference committee working hard to avoid an Iowa government shutdown.

Eventually a final version of the HHS budget bill went to vote. The language was a significant change, but in the end, Medicaid funding for these women was preserved.

Still, we are disappointed that the General Assembly decided to change more than 30 years of Iowa law in this area. But as Senator Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines) stated in his opening comments on the bill, we hope and many expect that this new legislation has the effect of maintaining the same level of service and care for Iowa’s most vulnerable women.

Please thank House and Senate leadership and the members of the conference committee for all of their work on this bill.

  • Senator Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs)
  • Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha)
  • Representative Dave Heaton (R-Mt. Pleasant)
  • Representative Joel Fry (R-Osceola)
  • Representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley)
  • Senator Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines)
  • Senator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City)
  • Senator Amanda Ragan (D-Mason City)

Stop-Gap Budget Bill (HF698)

In case an agreement wasn’t reached on the HHS budget bill and to allow the governor more time to review the budgets, the General Assembly also voted Thursday to pass a stop-gap budget bill.

This one-month budget averts a government shutdown and gives the governor 30 days to review and sign off on the budgets.

Happy Independence Day to everyone! After a legislative session like this one, we’ll be more mindful than ever of the difficulties and challenges our founding fathers had in crafting a democracy.

Anna J. Dey
Lobbyist/Staff Attorney, ACLU of Iowa

Leo Tolstoy Visits the Capitol

June 8, 2011

Ok, maybe not. But a bill with a length rivaling Tolstoy’s War & Peace was debated in the House yesterday. The Omnibus Budget Bill has become known a “Frankenstein” bill because it brings to back to life several issues that had already died (sometimes more than once) this session.

The gigantic omnibus bill was handed out to legislators on Monday and required shrink-wrap to contain its approximately 600 pages.

And if that monster wasn’t enough for House members to process, the same day it was handed out, the House Ways and Means Committee was faced with lengthy discussions on abortions:

Criminalizing Mid-Term Abortions (SF534)
That old adage about not watching sausage or laws being made held true once again Wednesday.

SF534, as passed by the Senate, modified the application process for any new outpatient surgical facility providing abortions after 20 weeks in a way that would ensure the protection of the life of the pregnant woman and any potentially viable fetus. An amendment Monday was introduced in the House to strike everything in the bill and replace it with extreme changes to Iowa’s current criminal feticide statute.

As amended, SF534 would subject abortion providers to a 10-year criminal sentence if they terminate a pregnancy after 20 “completed weeks.” In an outrageous move, any exception for the health of the mother was specifically stricken from the bill.

But what horrified me the most, as a civil libertarian and an Iowa woman, was when the bill manager stated that the normal, human gestation period was 36 weeks (it’s actually approximately 40) and the second trimester period runs from 20 to 23 weeks!

To make matters worse, the bill manager was “surprised” to hear from the press that SF534 “was tougher than the previous version” of the 20-week ban bill. (Click here for a Radio Iowa story summarizing.)

This is exactly what Iowa does not want: Significant, personal, medical decisions taken away from Iowa’s pregnant women, their families, faith advisors, and trained medical professionals and placed in the hands of bureaucrats who don’t even know basic reproductive facts.

However, SF534 was voted on in the house without debate, even though the harmful amendment was ruled not germane and needed a suspension of the rules to consider it, with the only comments made by the bill’s floor manager.

The bill will now go to the Senate. Please click here to contact your senator and ask that person to vote a resounding “NO” on this devious measure that places Iowa’s women at an extreme risk.

Troublesome sections of the giant omnibus budget bill:

The Anti-Victim Section
There just doesn’t seem to be enough anti-female, anti-choice sentiment to go around, does there?

This unconscionable section of the bill would prohibit Medicaid funds from being used for abortions resulting from incest or rape. This would mean that only wealthy victims could receive an abortion, while poor victims would have to take to term the result of the incredibly invasive crime against them.

This same attempt was refused by the Senate earlier in the session–but here it is again, back in Frankenstein form.

The Criminalizing Synthetic Marijuana Section
Under this section if passed, synthetic marijuana, also known as K2 or bath salts, would be criminalized.

There had been disagreement this session over the severity of the penalty–felony vs. aggravated misdemeanor. The ACLU does not support punitive drug policies that have resulted in unprecedented levels of incarceration.

The Graham Amendment
The United States Supreme Court recently held that giving a juvenile a life sentence for a non-homicide offense without a “meaningful opportunity” for parole is unconstitutional, and the Iowa Supreme Court subsequently concurred.

This portion of the omnibus bill would fix a juvenile’s eligibility for parole at 25 years, the length suggested by the Iowa Bar Association. However, the bill takes a significant step away from the Supreme Court’s ruling by prohibiting parole for juveniles who are convicted of a class A felony and first-degree kidnapping or first-degree sexual abuse. This is a violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court’s holding.

The School Dress Code Section
Currently, Iowa school districts can tell students only what they can’t wear. This bill would allow school districts to tell students what they must wear (i.e., khaki pants, blue shirt, etc.), creating the the equivalent of school uniforms.

This has the potential to open school districts up to constitutional legal challenges based on, for example, restricting a student’s freedom of speech.

At the end of this abnormally convoluted legislative week, House members started packing their boxes to go home and expressed their hope that they would not have to return to the Capitol until there is a resolution of the budget stalemate.

I am also going to attempt to share in that optimism.

Anna J. Dey
Lobbyist/Staff Attorney
ACLU of Iowa

Emotional Debates, Long Hours

May 17, 2011

The past few days in the Legislature have been a torrential downpour of activity that culminated in yesterday’s heated Senate floor debate. It was some of the worst–and best– debating I’ve seen all session. Where emotion took over, the debate became personal and lacked the professionalism we’d all expect from representatives. But those who were able to maintain decorum pulled through with clear and convincing messages.

Debate to What End? The 20-Week Abortion Ban Bills (HF657 and SF534) Are Resolved
Nerves frayed during this heated fight, which began Thursday, continued until 9 p.m. Thursday, and finally ended with a Senate floor vote Monday. In the end, fortunately, SF534 passed, preserving a woman’s reproductive freedom.

The emotion surrounding the debate is understandable. But let’s look at this in context:

In 2009, only six abortions past 20 weeks were performed in Iowa. And, apparently, in the past decade all of those performed were done at the nationally recognized University of Iowa Hospitals. Nonetheless, our senators have spent the majority of the past few weeks dealing not with job creation and not with ending the budget stalemate, but with hyperfocusing on those six abortions performed under the watchful eye of arguably Iowa’s best medical professionals.

HF657, which had been forced out of Senate committee using a rare “discharge petition,” was clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s many rulings.  SoSenator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City)  drafted SF534. His reasoning was reported in The The Iowa Independent.

“As the House bill is written, there is no meaningful exception for life of the mother, no exception for rape, no exception for incest and no exception to fetal abnormalities that prevent the baby from surviving after its born. …What (Senate File 534) does is protect the life and health of woman and the potentially viable fetus. What it does not do is put politicians in the middle of a family’s gut-wrenching decision.”

SF534 tightens the requirements to open a late-term clinic by mandating that it  1) show a need for the service and 2) locate near one of the five Iowa hospitals that provide a high enough level of neonatal care. Practically speaking, it would be incredibly rare for a new clinic to meet these requirements.

The bill now goes to the House.

Despite the highly emotional, loud, and often decorum-less discussion on the bill, Senator Bolkcom continued to stand fast for the Constitution and, most importantly, the health and lives of  Iowa women.

Please click here to thank Senator Bolkcom for his tireless effort against extraordinary opposition.


Personhood–Again (HF656)
Although clearly unconstitutional under the U.S.  Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade, last week Representative Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill) asked the House to suspend the rules to consider a bill that makes all fetuses “persons” with all of the rights and privilege of personhood.Both House Republicans and Democrats were smart enough to vote 72-25 to not consider the bill.


Agricultural Crimes (HF589)
Putting forth arguments that become more twisted all the time, the House, in March,approved a bill that calls for prison sentences of up to 10 years for people caught going into a livestock confinement to take pictures or video.

During floor debate supporters plead the case that HF589 was necessary to prevent damage to livestock when trespassers breach sanitation to shoot their videos.  Interesting–especially given that damage to agricultural animals is already covered in the current Iowa Code.

Then came the ridiculous argument that these whistleblowers are being trained in an Al-Qaeda-type fashion to sneak covertly onto property, make recordings, and edit them in a way to falsely sensationalize the recordings. (I imagine this happening, of course,  in the dead of night, with camouflage, face paint, and secret hand signals).

Two more awful amendments were proposed in the Senate: S-3286 and S-3297 target  trespassers and  any of their little aiders, abeters, or conspirators– i.e. the person who gave them that evil little camera.

It all borders on the absurd, with every argument but the kitchen sink getting thrown in.

Last week, Senator Sandy Greiner (R-Keota) said the bill is actually about people who lie on their employment applications to get a job for the sole purpose of whistleblowing.  So yet another amendment (S-3341) was proposed to make it a crime to obtain access to an ag facility under “false pretenses.” For some reason, there is amnesty for spouses. (Your guess is as good as mine as to why that is necessary).

The result? Instead of our legislators creating jobs or solving the budget crisis, they are being convinced by ag facilities to fix an issue that facilities already can fix themselves with existing laws. In fact, the Animal Agriculture Alliance advised the ag facilities at their 2010 stakeholders’ meeting to do just that:  Simply put clauses in their employment contracts.

This bill now goes to the Senate. Click here to contact your senator to tell him or her that enough is enough and vote NO on HF589!

As this legislative session continues toward record-breaking length, the ACLU of Iowa will continue to keep you updated on any movement.

Anna J. Dey
Lobbyist/Staff Attorney
ACLU of Iowa

The Problem With Idle Hands

May 6, 2011

A legislator joked to me last week that the longer the General Assembly is in session, the more mischief it can make. Funny at the time; not quite as funny now.

The end of the legislative session was supposed to have been Friday, April 29. However, the stalemate over the budget has kept the legislature another week with no definite end in sight. And that means there is more time to resurrect “dead” bills that have no merit.

The 20-Week Abortion Ban Bill is Back
In a disturbing, last-minute move, a rare “discharge petition” was filed Tuesday morning to force the bill that would limit abortions to 20 weeks (HF657) out of Senate committee, where it was considered essentially dead, and to the floor for debate.

This extremely dangerous bill is arguably the worst of the entire session. It takes the choice to perform a life-saving abortion away from our licensed medical professionals, families, and–most importantly–pregnant women. Instead, these women would be required by law to wait until their lives are in “immediate danger” before they could receive a life-saving abortion, and then they would have to make it to one of the only five authorized facilities in Iowa–one of which won’t even perform the procedure.(Click here to read more about it.)

The petition was signed by all of the Senate Republicans and two Senate Democrats, Dr. Joe M. Seng (D-Davenport) and Tom Hancock (D-Epworth).

Thank you to all who responded to our Action Alert a few days ago and contacted your state senator to express your concern.

If you haven’t done so already,  please click here to find and contact your Senator and tell them to vote no on putting Iowa’s pregnant woman at risk and putting this important choice into the hands of bureaucrats.


The “Ag Gag” Bill Advances
Last week, the American Veterinary Medical Association joined the public outcry and spoke out against the attempts to criminalize agricultural whistleblowers. Despite the ever-increasing public concern about the plethora of problems with bills like HF589, supporters of the “ag gag” bill continue to push hard to get the bill passed by the end of the session.

Let me put the enormity of this bill in context for you: If the two most recent amendments to the ag gag bill  (S-3286 and S-3297) are incorporated, they would make it an aggravated misdemeanor (up to 2 years in prison) the first time you trespass onto an agricultural facility with a “recording device,” regardless of whether you actually make a recording. Compare that to current Iowa law, where if you trespass and actually injure a person, the penalty is only a serious misdemeanor (up to 1 year). Under current law, even if you trespass with the intent to commit a hate crime, the penalty is still only a serious misdemeanor!

The bill’s extraordinary deformation of the law is absolutely unacceptable. It sends a disturbing message to Iowans that our legislature places a higher value on protecting poultry than protecting human equality.

If you haven’t already, please continue to let your senators know that HF589 must not become law. (Click here for a list showing your senator with a link to his or her email.)



A Last-Ditch Effort for Traffic Camera Due Process
The end-of-session standing appropriations bill came out on Monday.  It has a reputation of being the catch-all, last-ditch-effort bill.

Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale), who has been the key senator leading the charge to bring due process to traffic cameras, proposed an amendment to the standings appropriations bill to do just that.  He proposed that the bill include a requirement that uniform warning signs be posted for the cameras and that there be a limit created on the sometimes astronomical fines currently imposed for any violations.  Unfortunately, the amendment was deemed not germane. But thank you, Senator Zaun, for your efforts. (Click here if you’d like to send him a thank you email.)


Here’s to having the budget stalemate resolved amicably and to everyone getting to go home to rest up for next session– especially the hard-working men and women in our Iowa General Assembly.

Here’s to having the budget stalemate resolved amicably and to everyone getting to go home to rest up for next session– especially the hard-working men and women in our Iowa General Assembly.


Anna J. Dey
Lobbyist/Staff Attorney
ACLU of Iowa

Email: anna.dey@aclu-ia.org