Let Them Vote!

Our governor, Terry Branstad, has magnanimously decreed that it will now be easier for convicted felons to regain their right to vote. One does wonder about this as most convicted felons who would even consider voting are democrats. I'm sure there are many in his party that question the propriety of this demonstration of democratic enthusiasm. All is well though, in that most felons don't vote. They have long ago accepted the fact that voting has no effect whatsoever on their lives and is more trouble than it is worth. The harm done by this act is minimal, if any. The other sop given to the hardliners is the money. In order to be able to vote, these convicted felons will have to pay. It will cost money to vote. From what was reported of the decision by the governor in the paper, which may or may not have any basis in fact, in order for a felon to regain his right to vote, he must have paid his fines, court costs, attorney fees, and restitution or be making regular payments on them. Since 80%, at a minimum, of convicted felons are destitute, not much will be added to the state treasury from this decision by the governor--although it does sound good and will placate those of us who worry constantly about the state budget and high taxes. What this does, in fact, is further restrict the right to vote. The governor proclaims that it will now be easier for a felon to regain his right to vote but at the same time requiring money to do it. The effect is the opposite of the proclaimed which is exactly how we do things in this country. It works since most of us don't think about anything at all and certainly will not spend any time analyzing the governor's proclamation but will take it for what it is stated to be. As we are also creating felons at a rapid pace, the numbers of the public able to vote will continue to diminish. The legislature creates new felons every session. They should quit the quibbling and just make every crime a felony and we can solve the problem of ne'er-do-wells voting once and for all.

Permission to Drive

Many are the complaints of government interference in our personal lives; the regulation of our daily activities. One of the most important activities, a most necessary activity, is driving a car. A citizen of Iowa may not drive a car, motorcycle, truck without permission from the State. I can think of few regulations more onerous than this one. I can not drive to the grocery store, to my job, to any other destination unless I have permission from the State of Iowa to do so. One wonders whether their was a populist uprising over this provision of the law when acted. When Obamacare came into existence, a violent protest ensued over government interference in our health care as if we haven't been living with government interference in our lives since birth. Apparently it is not appropriate for the government to tell you to get health insurance, but it is ok for the government to give you permission to drive a car. This doesn't seem to be logical. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that a large number of people don't think the government has any business telling them not to drive. These are people I represent, charged with driving without a license, driving while revoked, driving while barred. A citizen of this state may be suspended, revoked, or barred from driving a motor vehicle. It is unknown why we have such a variety of names for the withdrawal of permission to drive except for the fact that our elected representatives believe they have the right and authority to determine who can drive a car and who can't. There are innumerable methods by which the State of Iowa can withdraw a person's right to drive a car; the methods seem to increase in number each time the legislature meets. The two major reasons for losing your driving license are: One, a person is considered to be dangerous behind the wheel, i.e., operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; and two, money. If a person owes a fine, court costs, or has a driving related judgment, one will not be allowed to drive unless the sum is paid or a satisfactory payment plan is made. Our lives are organized in such a manner that driving is a necessity. We have had no say in this. Unless one lives in a high density city where all the necessities are within walking distance, driving is required. No such place exists in Iowa. Faced with the choice of not driving and taking care of yourself and your family, driving is the choice. Those who must drive are normally in the lower income range, often receiving government assistance. There is little an attorney can do for someone caught driving without a license; one had a driver's license or one didn't. If caught driving without a license, the person is fined, jailed, and the suspension extended. Now there are more fines to pay and poor paying jobs lost because of incarceration. This is nothing more than a tax on the poorest citizens. We must understand that we use crime for purposes of control. A most important unintended consequence of driving without a license is also driving without insurance. If one does not have a driver's license, one can not obtain insurance. The consequence of this is that a significant percentage of drivers on our highways have no insurance and in the event of an accident, the person with the insurance pays. The person without insurance is normally judgment proof and if the fault of the driver without insurance, our Department of Transportation will see to it that the person without the insurance will never have a driver's license for he will never be able to pay the insurance company of the driver with insurance who was required to foot the bill. None of this makes any sense, of course, but what does? Unless, as it obviously is, the purpose of these laws is to control the citizenry. The courts have rationalized this control by stating explicitly that a driver's license is a privilege not a right. This simple statement is the basis on which the State of Iowa gives its citizens the right to drive a car. If the statement were turned around and the courts would have stated that a driver's license is a right not a privilege, the world would be a different place; and apparently, in the eyes of the legislature, chaos would ensue. This assumption seems to be without merit. There is little likelihood in this land of the free and home of the brave that anarchy would reign if its citizens had a right to drive.

Legislative Intent

The term "legislative intent" comes absurdly close to being an oxymoron. The Iowa Supreme Court in a recent case, State v. Adams, 810 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa 2012) gives us in one short paragraph the methods by which one may ascertain the intent of a statute. The process seems rather complicated. It would seem much easier to begin with the assumption that the statute is superfluous as it most likely is. The beginning premise of any analysis of a statute should commence with the idea that there are too many of them. The Iowa legislature, as with all legislatures, work under the assumption that their job is to pass as many laws as possible in the short time allotted them. A legislator, one who has been elected to serve in a legislature, by those who bother to vote and who have never read a statute nor would understand it if they did, is presumed to have a modicum of intelligence. He, or she as the case may be, fancies himself to have a mandate to address the complaints of his constituents. These mandates derive from newspaper headlines or the disapproving tone of television news anchors trickling down to the voter transforming themselves into moral outrage or general opprobrium. These outraged voters who think that the local television anchor has actually thought about anything call up their representative or senator and demand that something be done. The legislature in turn agrees that something must be done about whatever it is that is bothering his constituents and sets about proposing legislation to end the practice being complained of. The intent of the legislator is to remain in office and if it means passing ridiculous and superfluous legislation, so be it. Whatever intelligence a single legislator may possess, disappears into the abyss when joined with that of other legislators sitting in a group to discuss the upcoming proposals. Some will be in favor of a particular proposal and some will be against it; none will have read the proposed law but will vociferously support or disavow it regardless, depending, usually, on party affiliation. A perfect example of legislative superfluity are the driving while intoxicated laws. It has been determined that driving while intoxicated is a serious matter to be quashed where all possible. It makes no difference whatsoever that driving while intoxicated is a form of reckless driving already on the books and a statute so subjective in nature that it can form the basis of about any arrest law enforcement wants to make. The prohibitionists have reincarnated themselves into MADD. I can almost guarantee you that any given member of MADD is on the cell phone before leaving the driveway on the way to McDonald's drive through for her morning latte tailgating some elderly person on the interstate while yelling at her kids in the back seats of her minivan between quick glances in the mirror to check her makeup. So much for reckless driving. The courts are quick to find a law constitutional; they have a vested interest in not abusing legislative bodies. Legislatures give them money; pay for their retirement. It would not do at all to irritate those who fund you. Ergo, the laws pile up, one on another, until we are buried in them. There is no incentive to find a law unconstitutional which makes the interpretation of statutes easy indeed. So when the courts tell us what is required to interpret a law they are really telling us to grin and bear it.

Legitimate Rape

Its election day and we can only hope that the Republicans will prevail here in Iowa so that we can then have an intelligent discussion of rape. Our criminal code does not distinguish between legitimate rape and illegitimate rape which is a legitimate concern-hopefully not being unduly playful with the wording. This being a serious subject and one that needs clarification, readers should not believe for an instant that I am not serious when I say we need clarification which clarification should be enacted this next legislative session. Too many men are subjected to prison and requirements of life-time sex offender registration where the rape has not been legitimate. Is one "No, I don't want to have sex", enough to classify the sex act rape. Should the person being raped be required to say it three times? If one of the sex partners is immobilized by ropes, handcuffs, or other devices, can we call this legitimate rape? The popularity of the book Fifty Shades of Gray would seem to indicate that this would not be legitimate rape. If one of the sex partners is drunk, should this be classified as legitimate rape? It would seem to me that the whole purpose of getting drunk would be to have sex especially in a frat house or some like establishment. We need clarification. The police and prosecutors need better guidance as to what may be deemed legitimate and what illegitimate. There are instances where women have been charged with rape and in most cases these are instances of illegitimate rape. The latest example to read about in the papers is the female teacher having sex with high school boys. Being a man myself and having once been a high school student, it is difficult to think that I or any of my friends would have objected to having sex with an attractive, young high school teacher. From what I gather from the Des Moines Register, this young, attractive, female high school teacher is being prosecuted for sexual abuse and faces prison and sex offender registration. This is but one more example of what should be considered illegitimate rape. The new legislature must immediately put together a study committee to examine the current laws on this subject and make recommendations for changes. I would advise strongly against inviting experts, social workers, sex counselors, prosecutors, or police to be on the committee for they usually have an economic interest in the number of people prosecuted for rape. The committee should only consist of legislators and ordinary citizens who have no economic interest in the matter.

Jury Nullification

Nothing would be more ill-advised than allowing juries to think they can simply ignore the law and find a defendant not guilty. Juries are instructed that they must follow the instructions as given to them by the judge and any indication of insurrection should be immediately addressed. In this great republic of ours, we delegate the authority to make and enforce laws to our elected representatives and any sign that the general public might not agree with a certain enacted crime should be dealt with as it occurs. No indication should be given during a criminal trial that the law was enacted for the benefit of just those chosen to decide the case; and it makes not a whit of difference if the jury agrees with it or not, they must find the defendant guilty. Anarchy would result if juries were free to find defendants not guilty simply because they had the notion to do it. Many a defense attorney has wanted to stand in front of a jury in closing argument and argue that the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted is really stupid and the twelve people deciding the case can find him not guilty whether he did the act or not. I suspect a mistrial would be instantly declared, the attorney either held in contempt or severely reprimanded, and the defendant required to go through the entire process a second time--probably with more compliant defense counsel. It is an unfortunate fact that a jury trial is the single, only, specific instance of a citizen having a direct say in what the law should or should not be. And I say unfortunate advisedly. No small group of citizens, such as a jury, should be able to nullify the power of either the state or the federal government. In any other form of insurrection, the group would be instantly jailed and charged with some crime or another and be held to account. As a jury, they can do whatever they want and nothing can be done about it. We need to fix this. We need our legislatures to address this issue and enact some sort of crime whereby jurors can be prosecuted if they do not follow jury instructions. If a legislative body takes its valuable time to pass a law, and the multitude of law enforcement agencies extant make the effort to enforce it, we can't have a group of twelve people ignoring it. Too much time, effort, and money has gone into the process.