Latest news with #StevenHolt
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate passes bill restricting eminent domain for carbon pipelines
Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, hugs landowner and activist Kathy Stockdale after the Iowa Senate passed legislation dealing with the use of eminent domain in carbon capture pipeline projects the night of May 12, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa senators voted 27-22 late Monday to pass a bill to limit the ability of carbon sequestration pipelines to use eminent domain, sending it to the governor's desk after a drawn-out debate. The decision follows four years of Iowans and House lawmakers urging for eminent domain reform in response to the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. House File 639 comprised a number of bills passed by the House aimed at eminent domain. Senators tried repeatedly to change the scope of the bill with various amendments, none of which were adopted. Sen. Tim Kraayenbrink, R- Fort Dodge, said amid debates on eminent domain and carbon capture pipelines, that senators were 'missing the point' that the bill was poorly written and likely to create problems. 'The point is a crappy bill that we're going to be voting on here in a little bit,' Kraayenbrink said. Landowners opposed to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline have traveled to the Capitol countless times over the past four years, urging lawmakers to move on the issue. Many of those opposed to the pipeline own land in its path and fear its impact to their land, property values and safety. The pipeline would transport carbon dioxide, captured from ethanol facilities, across Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas and into underground storage in North Dakota. The Iowa Utilities Commission granted the project eminent domain rights in June, though the project cannot begin construction until it has permits in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. Proponents of the pipeline say it will allow Iowa to enter new, low-carbon ethanol markets, which would in turn help corn and soybean farmers. The company's permit in South Dakota was recently denied, following the state's passage of a law preventing hazardous liquid pipelines carrying carbon dioxide from using eminent domain in the state. Summit has said it plans to reapply. HF 639, as written, changed definitions of a common carrier, increased insurance requirements to cover any damages to property and reimburse landowners for increases in premiums due to the pipeline, set requirements for the IUC and expanded who can intervene in IUC proceedings. A group of 12 senators signed a letter last week saying they would not vote on budget legislation until the eminent domain bill was debated. Their move stalled action on budget bills and contributed to pushing the session into overtime. Lawmakers have not received part of their per diem expense payments since May 2. After the pipeline bill passed, senators approved the budgets for education and agriculture and natural resources, sending them to the House. Senators planned to debate the issue on Friday, and drew a crowd of interested constituents to the Capitol, but the chambers leaders did not bring the bill to the floor. Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, the bill's floor manager, proposed an amendment that would rewrite the bill, similar to what he had proposed in committee, that would have allowed companies to pursue voluntary easements outside of the project corridor, in order to avoid using eminent domain. Bousselot called the original bill a 'Trojan horse' bill written by 'climate extremists' trying to kill the Summit pipeline project. Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored HF 639, said it's 'ridiculous' to suggest the bill is about environmental extremists. 'This is not about environmental extremism at all, it's about protecting landowners,' Holt said. 'I think that the arrogance the Senate is showing, the disrespect to property owners is frankly unacceptable.' Bousselot's amendment would have kept HF 639 provisions requiring Iowa Utilities Commission members' attendance at permit hearings, a one-year deadline for permit decisions, and would have held project operators responsible for damage to the land during the lifetime of the project. Under the amendment, the eminent domain changes would have applied to all projects seeking government permission to force unwilling landowners to give up easements for a court-determined price, not just carbon sequestration projects. Bousselot said the amendment 'protects Iowans, protects landowners of all types, for all project types.' His amendment would have stopped carbon sequestration pipelines from using eminent domain, unless the project had been granted a permit by the IUC before the enactment date, or had a sole purpose of connecting to another project that was already granted eminent domain. 'It ends eminent domain on CO2 pipelines in a constitutional manner, on a go forward basis,' Bousselot said. Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, said it's 'not correct' to say the bill is all about killing the Summit project. 'We're just saying you have to follow the law,' Taylor said. Taylor said the requirement to use eminent domain is public use. 'It's not a positive business climate, it's not helping the agribusinesses in the state, it's not the price of corn or helping the ethanol plants, it's public use,' Taylor said. Bousselot's amendment failed narrowly, 28-22. Democrats submitted an amendment, with language from House File 943, which the House passed in March, to ban the use of eminent domain on pipelines transporting liquified carbon dioxide. Sen. Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, sponsored the amendment and said it would get at the 'fundamental question' of eminent domain, which constituents have asked the body to debate. Wahls said bipartisan conversations over the past several weeks have been 'fractured' and 'raucous.' 'I think most of the people in this room are quite tired, but I'm quite positive that there is nobody in this room more tired than the landowners who are sitting in the gallery because they've been taking time out of their lives, not being paid to come to this building, and ask for their voice to be heard,' Wahls said. Bousselot argued that the amendment was not germane, since it was a 'major change to the scope of the bill' and Senate President Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, agreed and the amendment was scrapped. Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, asked Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, about some of the issues he had with the bill, including multiple definitions of a common carrier and an 'elevated standard' for judicial review that he said would 'bog the system down.' Klimesh also noted a lack of specificity in some of the language of the bill, like the section expanding intervenors in utility board cases that does not specify that members of the general assembly, city or county officials must be in Iowa. 'I mean is that the intention really, to bog this system down with interveners from any place or anywhere, any elected official, any city council, county official, or any resident with plausible interest in the proceedings?' Klimesh said. Following the decision, Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said the arguments brought up on the Senate floor about the bill providing for out-of-state individuals to intervene with the Iowa permitting process were incorrect, and 'it reflects a misunderstanding of the IUC system and administrative law.' He said the process of intervention only gives individuals the right to file motions and get copies of meetings by email. 'It's not an invitation to sue,' Thomson said. 'And there is a limitation on there, that you have to have some connection with what's going on. It's absurd to say that we're opening the process up to endless litigation.' Klimesh asked on the floor how the insurance clauses of the bill would be determined. He said the bill, as written, would make it more difficult for all pipeline projects in the future and tie up 'critical infrastructure projects' in court and therefore pass costs onto consumers who would have increased utility costs. Klimesh said in the future, companies that want to build pipelines in the state would be deterred by the requirements in the bill that would be costly. Alons said much of the language was a 'codification' of what is already in the IUC rules. Klimesh said the bill would lead to increasing costs on energy for Iowans. 'Cost drivers, cost increases — they're based off decisions we make here in this chamber,' Klimesh said. 'This is one of those decisions that is going to affect pipeline companies, again, far beyond CO2 pipeline companies and places an onerous burden on them to ascertain and achieve this coverage.' Klimesh also worried that enactment language in the bill would open the door to lawsuits from Iowans who have already signed an easement contract with the state when Summit is not longer able to uphold that contract without eminent domain to complete the project. 'I'm concerned about putting the state of Iowa and our taxpayers at a legal risk,' Klimesh said. 'This bill sets up a whole avalanche of potential bad policy. While we were trying to squash a fly, we took a nuclear bomb to it.' Taylor said senators tried to swap HF 639 for a different version, via the Democrats' amendment, but 'it was rejected out of hand.' 'So it makes me wonder if it wasn't really just any opposition to tampering with the Summit pipeline, rather than the particulars of 639' Taylor said. Taylor said the group of GOP senators who stepped forward to push for a debate on this faced criticism for doing that, but Taylor said he was standing for Republican values and the motto of Iowa. 'When it says our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain, there's not an asterisk there,' he said. 'It doesn't say unless we're threatened by a billion dollar lawsuit.' Sen. Mike Zimmer, D-DeWitt, said he was 'flummoxed' that the Democrat's amendment was turned down, because it made the argument 'really simple.' 'You can be for the pipeline, you can be for ethanol production, you can be for union workers putting that pipeline together, and say, 'we can do this without having to use eminent domain'' Zimmer said. Klimesh said when he met with the 12 senators who pushed for a debate on the bill, he offered to work with them and to amend the bill to resemble HF 943, but the group declined. 'In that week's time, we could have sat around and crafted probably a much better piece of legislation,' Klimesh said. Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, said 'hogwash' and that there was an opportunity for a cleaner bill on the floor and the majority chose to ignore it. Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, criticized the majority party for not working on the bill sooner. 'Where have you been? This bill didn't start a week ago … we've had years,' Bisignano said. Sen. Dan Zumbach, R-Ryan, said 'emotions got ahead of reality' on the issue and as a result, the body is stuck with 'horrible' legislation. 'This bill is about killing a project, not about constitutionality, not about property rights — we missed that boat, folks,' Zumbach said. 'Had it laid out there in front of us and we were too stubborn to listen to the actual words.' Bousselot said in his closing comments on the bill that everyone will leave the Capitol Monday claiming they 'voted to protect private property rights' because everyone either voted for his amendment, or for the bill. 'I hope we have a plan for infrastructure, to grow our state, for the jobs that are going to be harder to build, for the farmers that produce the wealth and the great crops and commodities that we rely on,' Bousselot said. The bill advanced from the Senate and will now go to Gov. Kim Reynolds for final approval. Reynolds has not said publicly whether she would sign or veto it. Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to a request for comment. Kathy Stockdale, a landowner from Iowa Falls, said she was happy to see the bill pass and was 'extremely proud' of the 12 GOP senators who took a stand to force the legislation to come to a vote. At the same time, Stockdale said she was 'deeply upset' as a Republican with Senate leadership, and that she and many landowners would have preferred to see House File 943 pass. 'It doesn't protect our private property rights,' she said. However, she said the bill passed does provide some benefits to landowners: 'It helps us in the IUC hearings. It does provide insurance for us. … It defines what a common carrier is, just like in South Dakota.' While the measure passed the Senate, she said she is not sure it will be signed by Reynolds. Thomson and Holt, who led the legislation in the House, hugged and shook hands with activists and landowners outside the Senate chambers after the bill's passage. Holt said Bousselot talking about being supportive of property rights was 'disrespectful' considering his role in similar bills stalling in the Senate in recent sessions. 'Everybody that's followed this knows that it has been Senator Bousselot, who formerly worked for Summit, who killed these pieces of legislation over and over again,' Holt said. 'It's so disingenuous and so disrespectful treating the citizens of Iowa like fools, so it was not a proud moment for me as a Republican.' Holt said the bill's Senate passage Monday was because of landowners and supporters who worked for three years to push lawmakers to vote on the bill. He also credited House Republicans for introducing and passing measures in response to these calls in recent legislative sessions. 'We listened to the people of Iowa, and that is why this finally got done,' Holt said. 'That is why the governor needs to sign it just as soon as possible.' Robin Opsahl contributed to this report. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa Senate passes anti-SLAPP bill providing free speech, press protections
(Photo by) The Iowa Senate unanimously passed a bill Wednesday that would provide protection against lawsuits aimed at limiting constitutional freedoms of speech and press. The legislation, House File 472, is known as an anti-SLAPP bill — referring to a measure intended to combat 'strategic lawsuits against public participation,' or SLAPP lawsuits. These are civil lawsuits filed by organizations or individuals against entities such as news organizations or activists not with the expectation of winning the case, but to discourage them from publishing articles or speaking publicly on an issue by engaging them in a long, expensive legal battle. 'In most cases, these actual tort claims for defamation or other related theories are weak and (lack) merit, but those purposes are tied to the speaker's legal fees and make them back down,' Sen. Jeff Reichman, R-Montrose, the floor manager for the bill, said. The measure would provide protections for those facing such lawsuits by allowing expedited relief in court for cases related to First Amendment rights, including freedoms of speech and press. The House has passed anti-SLAPP bills in several previous legislative sessions with bipartisan support that have failed to advance in the Senate. During House debate on the bill, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said he has attempted to pass anti-SLAPP measures since 2018. Those efforts were in response to a 2018 lawsuit against the Carroll Times Herald filed by a Carroll police officer who sued the newspaper after reporting that he had sexual relationships with teenagers, which the officer had admitted to. While the judge dismissed the case, the legal dispute 'almost put them out of business,' Holt said. Though no senators but Reichman spoke on the bill Wednesday, the measure was unanimously approved by the chamber. The Senate amended the legislation to state the protections only apply to civil actions filed on or after the bill's enactment — removing a provision in the original House bill that expedited relief could also be granted to a 'cause of action asserted in a civil action.' With the bill's passage in the Senate, it moves back to the House for approval of the amendment before it can go to Gov. Kim Reynolds.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa House votes to lower the age to own and carry a handgun to 18 years old
The age to buy and carry a handgun in Iowa would drop to age 18 under a bill that has passed the Iowa House. Currently, Iowans must be 21 years old to purchase or carry a pistol or revolver in the state. House File 924 would allow 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds to own handguns as well. House lawmakers voted 79-18 on Tuesday to pass the bill, sending it to the Iowa Senate for consideration. The bill's floor manager, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision created a new test for courts to evaluate gun restrictions. Since then, a number of courts around the country have struck down laws banning 18- to 20-year-olds from owning handguns. "The idea that young adults at age 18 to 20 are not mature enough to own a handgun is being rejected by the courts," Holt said. "The courts are ruling that young adults have the same right to keep and bear arms as older adults." While 18- to 20-year-olds would be allowed to own and carry handguns, the bill says someone younger than 21 cannot be issued a permit to acquire handguns and cannot use a nonprofessional permit to carry weapons to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Holt said Republicans added the language to stay in compliance with the federal government's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. "(The) NICS system has not yet caught up with the realities of Bruen, and the fact that many states allow young adults to possess a handgun," he said. "This is a solution to respect the rights of young adults to practice their Second Amendment rights while also working within the current restrictions in the NICS system." Rep. Lindsay James, D-Dubuque, said she understands that court rulings are prompting lawmakers to act, but she raised concerns about gun safety, pointing to data on gun deaths from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Data from the CDC shows us that in an average year, 343 people die by gun here in Iowa and death by gun is the second leading cause of death among children and teens," she said. "And for that reason, I'll be a 'no' today." Republican majorities in the Iowa Legislature have loosened the state's gun laws in recent years, including with a 2022 constitutional amendment approved by Iowa voters that added the right to keep and bear arms to the Iowa Constitution. A 2021 law removed the requirement for Iowans to have a permit to carry or acquire handguns. The bill would change the penalties in current law for making a handgun available to someone under 21 to line up with the proposed legal age of 18. It would be a serious misdemeanor to sell, loan, give or make available a handgun or ammunition to someone who is younger than 18. A parent or guardian who is 18 or older could allow a child under 18 to possess a handgun under direct supervision or while they are receiving lessons from an instructor. An adult parent or guardian who allows a child 14 years old or younger to possess a handgun would be liable for all damages resulting from the child's use of the handgun. Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@ or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on X at @sgrubermiller. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa House passes bill allowing 18-year-olds to own and carry handguns
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Criminalizing human smuggling, paid parental leave advances through Iowa House
DES MOINES, Iowa — A handful of bills made it through the Iowa House floor to mark the end of the lawmaker work week as the second funnel deadline nears. A bill that made it through the chamber last year but failed to get signed into law is one that criminalizes smuggling of undocumented immigrants in any means of transportation. The bill makes it a class C felony if someone is caught doing so, with higher degrees added in the scenario that the individuals are being smuggled in a manner that will cause serious bodily injury or death. The bill originally worded those being smuggled as 'noncitizens', which Iowa House Democrats took issue with. 'We're very concerned about the definition of noncitizen. We don't find that in code. And so we're a little concerned about what that means. Also, just unintended consequences, right? People who we're worried about, religious organizations who are having a hard time, you know, we're just trying to help out their neighbor,' said Iowa House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst, (D) District 32 from Windsor Heights. 'What are the implications there?' The bill would end up being amended to replace noncitizen with 'a person in violation of federal immigration laws.' Des Moines police investigating officer-involved shooting on city's south side 'Law enforcement has told me that this legislation would provide more tools in the fight not just to prosecute those who are engaged in human smuggling, but also those bad actors engaged in concealing those here illegally…,' said State Representative Steven Holt (R) District 12 from Denison. The bill passed in a vote of 75 to 14, it goes over to the Iowa Senate for consideration. The Iowa House also passed Governor Kim Reynolds' state employee paid parental leave bill. The bill would give a state employee parent who gives birth or adopts a child four weeks of paid leave. A state employee who did not give birth is entitled to one week of paid leave. The bill passed by a vote of 87-2 and is sent over to the Iowa Senate. 'Nothing is more important to me than supporting Iowa families. The weeks after bringing home your baby are vital time for bonding and recovery and a crucial development period for newborns. I want to thank Iowa House legislators for prioritizing families and recognizing the importance of present parenting.' Governor Kim Reynolds, (R) Iowa One bill was on the calendar that has been advocated for by law enforcement agencies and families that have lost a loved one due to distracted driving. The distracted driving bill would increase the fine of distracted driving from $45 to $100. But more importantly, would only allow the use of a mobile device in a hands-free mode. The bill ended up not being debated on the floor on Thursday as the Iowa House Republican caucus considered doing so. 'We expect to have support within the caucus that we have not got at this point in time. But usually a bill that's going to be on the calendar has a enough level of support that we want to have that for discussion within the caucus,' said Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley (R) District 57, from New Hartford. The Iowa Senate approved the bill earlier in the week and the legislation only received one vote against it. If the Iowa House does pass the bill it will be sent off to the governor's desk to be signed into law. Iowa News: Criminalizing human smuggling, paid parental leave advances through Iowa House Perry Principal Dan Marburger to receive posthumous award from Medal of Honor Recipients WHO 13 Farm Report: Thursday, March 20th Cyclones' Tamin Lipsey optimistic he will be available for first round of March Madness Drake star Bennett Stirtz's dad talks about his son's NCAA tournament debut Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Anti-SLAPP bill on lawsuits related to free speech, press passes Iowa House
DES MOINES, Iowa (Iowa Capital Dispatch) — The Iowa House unanimously passed legislation Tuesday offering legal protections against lawsuits filed to limit freedom of speech and press, the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. House File 472 is the latest attempt to enact an anti-SLAPP law in Iowa. SLAPP refers to 'strategic lawsuits against public participation,' civil lawsuits filed without an expectation of winning in court, but as an attempt to intimidate a person or news organization from exercising First Amendment rights like freedom of speech and press by threatening a lengthy, expensive legal battle. Iowa schools eligible for $1,000 match on local food purchases Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said this measure was first brought forward in the wake of a 2018 lawsuit against the Carroll Times Herald filed by a Carroll police officer, who sued the newspaper after it reported that he had sexual relationships with teenagers, which the officer admitted to. 'Even though the newspaper won the lawsuit, it cost them $100,000 almost put them out of business,' Holt said. The bill would hinder SLAPP lawsuits by allowing expedited relief in court for actions related to First Amendment rights, like freedom of speech and press, as well as freedoms to assemble, petition and of association. As of January 2025, 35 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place that provide ways to quickly dismiss SLAPP cases. Iowa House lawmakers have passed anti-SLAPP bills with bipartisan support in several previous sessions, but the bills have failed to gain traction in the Iowa Senate. Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, urged support for the measure in floor debate Tuesday, saying she hopes the Senate will move on the bill this year. 'I've only had three opportunities to vote for this bill, and I'll do it again today, and I hope that I don't get a fourth chance, and that our colleagues across the (rotunda) will pick this up,' Srinivas said. Holt said he is optimistic about the bill's chances in the Senate this year. The Senate version of the bill, Senate File 47, was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. Gov. Kim Reynolds says economy may be 'bumpy' under Trump policies, but projects long-term benefits 'I am proud that, in a bipartisan way, this chamber has been anti-SLAPP before anti-SLAPP was cool,' Holt said. 'It appears that it's now cool in the Senate, and actually is going to pass this session.' Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@ Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter. This story was republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
