Gov. Kim Reynolds signs 25 bills, including fireworks and school funding measures
Gov. Kim Reynolds signed 25 bills into law Monday, including measures related to fireworks, school funding and First Amendment rights.
The slate of bills signed is the first action on legislation Reynolds has taken since the 2025 legislative session adjourned Thursday. However, these are not the first bills she has signed this year — the governor has already signed into law several measures, including high-profile laws like the ban on using cellphones while driving outside of handsfree or voice-activated modes, and the removal of gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
There are still many other measures awaiting Reynolds' signature that passed this session. The governor has until June 14 — 30 days from the end of session — to sign bills passed this year into law. Measures she does not sign during this period are considered a 'pocket veto' and do not become law.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Here are some of the bills Reynolds signed Monday:
Iowa lawmakers sent Reynolds Senate File 167, the State Supplemental Aid (SSA) rate for the 2025-2026 school year, in April. The legislation came to the governor much later than in many previous years — the Legislature has a self-imposed deadline to pass the SSA rate for the upcoming school year within 30 days of the governor's budget being released in January, though there is no penalty for failing to meet this target.
This year, House and Senate Republicans reached an agreement setting the SSA rate for the upcoming school year at 2%, an increase of $157 per K-12 student for the per-pupil funding mechanism for Iowa schools. The bill also included some funding components for Iowa schools that Republicans said will help address inequities with rural school district funding, including a $5 bump to the State Cost Per Pupil (SCPP) and a 5% increase to the rate of funding per pupil to the transportation equity fund.
Democrats said the 2% rate will not provide enough funding for schools, saying that 159 Iowa school districts will be on the budget guarantee for the upcoming school year — a process that increases local property taxes when school districts' funding needs are not met by state aid.
The governor also signed House File 472 into law, a measure targeting 'strategic lawsuits against public participation,' also known as SLAPP lawsuits. SLAPP cases are civil lawsuits filed by businesses, individuals or organizations against news organizations and activists that are typically a means to try to silence these entities from publishing stories or making public statements about a specific topic. The lawsuits are not filed necessarily with the intention to win in court, but as a means to draw down time and money from the people being sued to prevent them from continuing to report or talk about a subject.
The law is a way to provide protections for defendants in these cases by giving courts the ability to grant expedited relief in cases involving First Amendment rights, like the freedoms of speech and press.
This is a bill that has come up in multiple previous legislative sessions, but did not receive Senate approval until this year. Discussions in Iowa started on SLAPP lawsuits after a 2018 case in which a Carroll police officer sued the Carroll Times Herald when the newspaper reported he had sexual relationships with teenagers — information the officer confirmed was true. The judge had dismissed the lawsuit, but the Carroll Times Herald accrued more than $100,000 in legal fees, nearly putting the paper out of business.
Senate File 303 prevents Iowa cities and counties from prohibiting or limiting the use of fireworks on July 3, 4 and Dec. 31.
Iowans must still follow state laws regulating the use of fireworks, like a ban on fireworks sales to minors or the use of 'display' fireworks without local permission, during these three days. However, other further restrictions could not be set by local jurisdictions.
Several cities in Iowa, like Des Moines, Ames and Iowa City, have more restrictions or total bans on the use of fireworks that would no longer be enforceable on these three days. Local rules could still be enforced during other periods when fireworks are permitted for legal use by the state — from June 1 through July 8 and Dec. 10 through Jan. 3 of each year.
During floor debate on the bill, Republican lawmakers supporting the measure said this change was necessary to allow Iowans to fully participate in the the country's 250th anniversary, referring to President Donald Trump's idea to begin celebrations at the Iowa State Fair for the 'Great American State Fair' from Memorial Day 2025 to July 4, 2026.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
E&E News
19 minutes ago
- E&E News
GOP looking again at imposing a federal fee for electric cars
Republicans in both chambers are looking to revive the idea of creating the first-ever annual federal fee for electric vehicles — despite the political uproar generated by a broader car fee proposed in a draft of the GOP's megalaw. The fee would help address — but not completely close — the country's infrastructure spending deficit, offering the Highway Trust Fund its first significant revenue expansion in decades. But getting it through Congress will be a challenge. House Transportation Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) generated a bipartisan backlash this spring when he proposed annual registration fees — $250 for electric vehicles, $100 for hybrids and $20 for all other vehicles — in the initial House version of the GOP's megabill (H.R. 1). He almost immediately had to strip out the $20 fee, and the other fees died in the Senate before the bill was signed into law. Advertisement But Graves wants to resurrect some version of that fee in the next surface transportation bill, which needs to be reauthorized by September 2026. The exact fee structure is far from determined, though it's clear that any new fee for vehicles that run purely on gasoline is not politically viable.
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Holds the Key to Trump's Murdoch Lawsuit—and Her Jail Cell
In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing more important to President Donald Trump than enriching himself. The uproar over releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files may have angered some of his base, but, remember, Trump has been covered with scandal his entire life, and it hasn't held him back. So, if you think that the only thing Trump wants from Epstein's co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is for her to say Trump's friendship with Epstein was only a matter of their common interest in Rococo decoration, you'd be wrong. Sure, she will say something like this, but Maxwell can also put money in Trump's pocket. In the end, that will matter more to him. Here's how she'll do it. Trump has sued media titan Rupert Murdoch and others because his newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published a bawdy letter it said Trump sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. According to the Journal article, Trump's letter was part of an album Maxwell assembled containing notes from Epstein's friends. To authenticate Trump's note and the obscene drawing that accompanied it, Journal reporters claim to have seen the album and talked to people knowledgeable about it. Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla.,... Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 12, 2000. MoreBut Trump emphatically denies ever writing the note, including its wish for Epstein that "may every day be another wonderful secret." He sued Murdoch and the others for defaming him—for publishing false and damaging statements about him with intent to harm his reputation. Murdoch and his fellow defendants want the case dismissed. They certainly have powerful First Amendment free speech claims to make, but they may not get an exoneration so easily. Trump may be able to drag Murdoch and his empire through the mud for a while before there's any decision about whether The Wall Street Journal was telling the truth. On that score, Maxwell may hold the key. It would be one thing if the Journal had incontestable evidence that Trump wrote the letter. Murdoch and the newspaper might win a quick judgment if that were the case, but Maxwell could block that by aiding Trump. Without a quick win, Murdoch and company will face the ugly business of the evidence gathering process known as discovery. Trump will demand to pry into the inner workers of the Murdoch empire. He will seek mountains of documents, pose endless written questions, and demand pre-trial testimony from a parade of witnesses. Too often judges don't adequately police the discovery process, and it leads to endless fights, expenses, and for Murdoch, unwelcome publicity for his personal and business life. Maxwell's course to help give Trump his chance to engage in this torment is simple. Remember, Trump has no case if it turns out he wrote the licentious letter. All Maxwell has to say is that she assembled the album and doesn't recall any letter in it from Donald Trump. In the world of Trump bribery, this should be worth a commutation—a shortening—of her sentence. For a pardon, she would do better to say that she specifically recalls that Trump did not send a greeting and that the two former friends fell out because Trump felt there was something fishy about Epstein. Wait for it. It's coming. If it wasn't discussed between Maxwell and Trump's personal lawyer and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during their recent long interview together, Maxwell probably doesn't need to be told what to do about it. After all, she has already received an incentive having been moved to a comfier prison. Sadly, each new Trump bribery nightmare seems to keep coming true. Some hoped he really wouldn't accept the $400 million plane from Qatar, until he did. Some thought maybe CBS would show some backbone when Trump sued it, until it didn't. And now here's the scariest thought of all. If Trump can keep his lawsuit in court and Maxwell in his pocket, Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit might prove to be his biggest payoff of all. Why not? Murdoch also owns Fox News. He has been Trump's biggest booster in the past, so why shouldn't Murdoch be glad if Trump's lawsuit stays in court? It becomes a perfect way for Murdoch to willingly give Trump what he wants more than anything else—money. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
