Democrats have no power to set the legislative agenda.

But how did they grade the 2025 session's results?

We'll sit down with Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner on this edition of Iowa Press.

Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation, the Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Across Iowa hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses.

Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build.

Learn more at Iowa bankers.com.

For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond.

Celebrating more than 50 years on statewide Iowa PBS, this is the Friday, May 30th edition of Iowa Press.

Here is Kay Henderson.

On this edition of Iowa Press our guest is a former diplomat, a former member of the Iowa City City Council.

And since late last year, she has been the Democratic leader in the Iowa Senate.

Senator Janice Weiner, a Democrat from Iowa City.

Welcome back to Iowa Press.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for having me.

Joining our conversation is Erin Murphy.

He is the from with with the Gazette in Cedar Rapids.

Senator Weiner, let's just jump right into the recently concluded legislative session.

One of the, big bills that passed deals with property rights, eminent domain, hazardous liquid pipelines.

Democrats voted with, about a dozen Republicans on that bill and supporting it and moving on to the governor's desk.

Why?

It has to do with listening to Iowans.

We've been out listening to Iowans.

It strikes me that many in the majority party have not listened to Iowans, have not listened to their constituents or landowners for several years, and they deserved a vote.

They deserved to have their issue come before the Senate.

And so that is one of the reasons that we join with them, because that's what we've been hearing out there to.

During that debate.

One of the Republican senators who was opposed to the bill, laid out a number of arguments, including his concern that it could have maybe unforeseen repercussions for other types of projects, not just hazardous liquid pipelines.

Maybe electron electric transmission lines, for example.

Do you share those concerns as as you read the bill?

I do not share those concerns.

I it and as you if you since you were there and paying attention, you know that we also, tried to propose an amendment that would have really been simply a clean, eminent domain bill, and that was rejected as not germane.

But.

That would have just banned eminent domain for pipelines on site.

Right.

It would have allowed it would have allowed, easements, you know, people, people to give easements there.

It struck me that there were elements that could have been put together to make it very simple, clean bill.

They opted not to do that.

But people - Iowans deserve to vote.

One thing that didn't come up in the Senate debate, but we heard, a lot more of, when the bill was considered in the House was the role that Iowa Utilities Commission has played in this process, and not just the legislation back to the pipelines themselves.

And in the permitting process.

Do you or did some Senate Democrats have a view on whether the that three member state regulatory Commission acted properly when it permitted this pipeline?

I don't I don't believe that we discussed that in detail, but I think that on the Senate side, you saw some of the repercussions of that with the appointments process because, the, the, the appointment of the current chair that the governor put forward again ended up being pulled.

Yeah.

And to that, the governor has appointed a new chair.

The three members are the same.

But the chair is new.

It's now Sarah Martz.

It's no longer Eric Helland.

Right.

What's your reaction to that?

Would you have the Senate has appointed Sarah Martz.

Are you comfortable with her as the new chair of the IUC?

We'll see how she does.

It's a they're a big shoes to to step into.

She has obviously not just the not just carbon capture pipelines but many other issues.

We will we'll see how they perform.

Just one final question on this topic.

The landowners that had been asking for the legislature to do something to help them in terms of their property rights and the carbon capture pipeline, say they'll be back next year to say, please ban eminent domain for this, in the same way that lawmakers in South Dakota did.

How will that go in the Iowa Senate?

Well, Senate Democrats support it again.

I can't predict what will happen next year.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that they'll be back again.

One of the things I think we have to be very careful is to, differentiate between the eminent domain issue and the pipeline itself, because sometimes those got conflated.

The notion of banning the pipeline versus not using eminent domain to get it built.

So I, I hope that, what I do hope is that my Republican colleagues will listen to them and work on something together with the House early on in the session, so that we don't end up pushed into over time by the situation that we saw this year.

One of the issues that Republicans said was a priority heading into the 2025 legislation was property tax change.

Nothing happened.

Let's go through some of the elements of the bill that was developed in the final days of the legislative session.

Having the state provide 400 million more dollars to local school districts to replace property taxes.

Limitations on how much cities and county budgets could grow.

What is the reaction among Senate Democrats to the bill that had been developed?

I mean, my reaction and that of my colleagues is, first of all, we're happy that it's been a deliberative process this time because property taxes keep coming up over and over again.

The, the it's been a deliberative and iterative process.

I'm happy that they've included local governments and listening to local governments, to county governments, to school boards, as well as consulting with us.

We I believe that that process will continue throughout the intersession.

I, I fully expect the property taxes to be an issue, an issue again in 2026.

It's an election year, after all.

And we what we'll be looking for, among other things, is to ensure that whatever Bill comes out, helps the people who need it as in some of the residential customers, and that it doesn't hurt cities and communities ability to provide essential services such as public safety.

So one of the elements of that bill, and among the conversation that Republicans have been having, is that there needs to be a limit on how much local government budgets may grow.

Is that something that Democrats see as a viable alternative?

I think we'll have to see what it looks like in the end, because they were talking about a specific limit, 2%, I think.

And we all know the realities of inflation.

We all know the realities when, when, when public when unions are negotiating contracts.

There's been a lot of discussion about how hard it is to attract, people to police and fire and so forth, and we need to be able to keep them because they're essential for communities.

So that has to be part of the discussion as well.

As I mentioned at the onset, you're from Iowa City.

One of the other legislators from Johnson County, Dave Jacoby on the Iowa House, proposed that, the legislature should provide, sort of tax credits to landowners and to renters to give the legislature more time to do this.

Senate Democrats, and he proposed that on behalf of House Democrats, Senate Democrats didn't offer their own alternative.

Do you plan to offer an alternative as a group of Senate Democrats in 2026?

I will talk to my colleagues and see what they say.

I think that the moneys that exist currently are, our taxpayer relief funds and I am personally loath to to dip into them for, for something like this.

I think we should look at the system holistically, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, with the with the Republican colleagues, to actually come up with a system that works for different sized cities and different places in the state, because not everybody's the same.

A final question on this, last week, Governor Reynolds was on this program, and she said she's going to go out there and develop a plan.

She sort of left it to Republican legislators this year, but she's going to go out.

Talk about maybe other taxes, maybe the, sales tax as a comprehensive way to address the property tax system.

What are your thoughts about her involvement and the idea of expanding the discussion to other forms of tax?

That's a really good question.

It's a it's already an incredibly complex system.

And that's one of the things I think we've seen over the past few years and why, the 2 or 3 iterations of this bill were already proposed.

The, the sales tax, to me, it sort of got involved in the discussion a couple of years ago and it was pulled back.

It's, the first thing that would have to happen, frankly, is they'd need to fund IWiLL.

If they're going to do something, if they're going to consider increasing the sales tax, they would have to finally fund IWiLL which the voters voted for many years ago.

Speaking of the governor, one thing that she made a priority in her condition, the state address way back in January that did make it into the budget is a $1 million allocation to the University of Iowa Health Care for cancer research, sort of a seed funding.

How pleased were you to see that?

How far can that go?

What more would you like to see?

I'm pleased it got in.

I guess I call it a good start, because we we all know that that real research takes, takes significant investments.

And we have we have the researchers, we have the expertise.

We should be investing in that for the last two years.

I have consulted with researchers around the state and proposed legislation both years that would have funded several different baskets of research at a at a significantly higher level.

The cancer is a problem in Iowa.

We have the second highest cancer rate in the country and the only growing one.

We owe it to Iowans to address this.

You have that.

We have the Harkin Institute announcing that they're going to look into this issue that you just described.

Are you encouraged by the direction things are heading?

Do you do you wish you'd see more focus, like these groups getting together and working on this?

Or do you think that these positive steps are being taken to, as you just said, figure out why this is happening?

I mean, I'm happy to see it.

What we need to be, what we as a state, what we need to be willing to do, in my view, is to go wherever the research takes us and not not pull back.

Maybe because we think it is going to impede on an area at some portion of, of agriculture.

We we just need to go where the research takes us so that we can solve this problem.

Sticking with the University of Iowa, we've seen, this administration under form, under President Donald Trump, having taking issue with some universities right now, he's, has issues with Harvard University.

It's already had an impact on the University of Iowa campus.

His policies with the students who have had their visas revoked.

Are you concerned what might be next for the University of Iowa when it comes to the administration?

Did you feel like University of Iowa is doing what it can to, you know, avoid these kinds of issues?

I have no idea what what more the federal government is going to do at this point.

The, the what I want to see is our state leaders standing up for our state institutions.

I want to see the governor in our federal delegation and anybody else in the in the state legislature making it clear why the University of Iowa and the others, Regents, universities are really essential institutions for the state.

Why?

They're engines of growth, how they bring people here, bring medical expertise and research.

And I think the University of Iowa may also be the largest employer in the state.

The, we they are institutions that we proudly call our own.

And I really expect to see people standing up for them.

Do you have any I mean, it's in your district.

Do you talk to university officials about any of this, and do they seek your counsel on, on, on any of these topics?

We talk all the time.

I talk with everybody from the university president on down to to to professors and deans and so forth.

The it's there are so many aspects to it.

We want to have a rich learning environment for all the students who come.

We want to be able to continue to have the university continue to be a draw.

It's one of the premier, if not the premier medical centers in the state.

We need to be able to continue to bring quality of people there.

And so that sort of moves into the into the research arm.

It's a top tier research institution.

We need the research dollars.

The million dollars is a good start.

We need a lot more as well.

We talked about a bill the governor has not yet taken action on.

Another one involves pharmacy benefit managers.

Those are the groups that decide how much, local pharmacy is paid for filling a prescription.

The Senate passed the bill.

The House passed the bill.

Pharmacists were in the office.

Some of them moved to tears because that bill passed.

Now you have groups of business.

The Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the Bankers Association saying don't sign the bill because it will raise insurance costs for businesses in Iowa.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that bill and what it might do to Iowa consumers and to Iowa employers?

Well, we it's definitely important for Iowans that we continue to be able to have the the the smaller pharmacies, the pharmacies that serve rural areas, the independent pharmacies that that compliment the larger chains in, in the urban areas.

The and it's and it's a challenge.

And the bill itself, was a challenge because I think that and you saw in our, in our caucus, you saw a split vote there, there was a Goldilocks spot that they chose.

They could have had, in my view, they could have had really a win for everyone.

That would have protected the that would have protected the smaller independent pharmacies that would not have raised costs too much on, in terms of insurance costs.

And I think unfortunately, they they somewhat missed that mark.

By the same token, we we need to keep those pharmacies open.

So I the governor's going to going to listen to a lot of people decide whether or not to sign it.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see this back again next year in some form if, if tweaks need to be made to improve it.

The state of Arkansas took the step of banning PBM from operating if they own the pharmacy, which essentially means that CVS, which is one of the big pharmacies in the country, is going to close all its CVS pharmacies in Arkansas.

Is that a step that you think I should take?

That I don't believe that was ever part of the part of the discussion.

Part of the discussion were things such as, creating zones around pharmacies so that they could pharmacies could, would, would be able to you would be able to survive if you had I don't know if it was a ten mile zone around it.

There were also steps to protect the smaller independent pharmacies, while not necessarily giving the same protections to the larger chain pharmacies.

It's it's been a few weeks now, so I don't remember all the details.

What I do remember was that it did seem like there should have been a solution that would make everybody happy, and it was one of these unusual times when when, a whole variety of different actors were working together to try and make that happen.

The governor from that very chair last week told us that she would like to see the pesticide bill, make it to her desk, and hopes that that can still happen in the future.

That bill passed the Iowa Senate with, Republican support, was not considered in the Iowa House.

Yet again is that, Democrats voted against that.

Is that a debate you assume you'll be having again next year?

I hope not.

It wouldn't surprise me if it comes up again, but I really hope not, because we've already seen it two years in a row, and it passed the Senate, on a razor thin margin.

I think there were only 26.

Yes votes.

That's right.

The, I, I paid attention.

I heard what the governor said, and I guess my response would be she's she's entitled to her opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts.

And the fact is that this is this bill is not just about labeling.

It's a it would be about holding foreign pesticide companies harmless, and we should not take away Iowa and stay in court.

And I think that's why we we saw it stall yet again.

The common pushback from that is if this product continues to face lawsuits and is ultimately pulled from the shelves, it's going to put farmers, Iowa farmers in a very difficult position.

Do you not share that concern?

The product's not going to go away.

There are already generic versions.

There's a lot of opportunity out there on the market.

The product's not going anywhere.

Shifting to another bill that cleared, in the final day of the session, or the night of the session or the early morning of the session, dealing with 911 systems, having local 911 systems pay the state a fee.

The governor says, you know, there's these local, I think, over 100 of them are maintaining a $66 million reserve.

And the state needs more resources to help manage the system.

Is that an argument that you support?

I support the argument that we need to figure out a way to to have all the local nine one ones operating, as well as whatever the the state version is I don't support.

And our caucus does.

My caucus does not support the way it was done.

And the language that was put that was put into the standing bill, like at five in the morning or whatever it.

Was, the standings bill for people is the last bill.

The very last bill has a bunch of stuff in it.

So I don't want to support the way it was done.

And I know that there's enormous concern among local emergency responders.

911 and that's also why my colleagues and I wrote a letter to the governor asking her to line item veto this particular piece.

We understand that it has to be dealt with, but we need to we should we should talk about it in the intersession, bring it back in an agreed form at the beginning of the next session, and get it done the right way.

The governor had put forth a bill dealing with child care preschool.

The continuum of care is how she called it.

That bill did not pass the Iowa Legislature.

Within a week of the session ending, she announced her sort of own plan through executive action.

I was wondering just what your reaction was to that plan that was fairly similar to what was in her bill?

Yes and no.

I mean, the bill which did pass the Senate but didn't make it, did make it through the House was essentially at least from, from my perspective, a shell game with money.

It was taking money away from, early childhood education, moving it into the trying to figure out trying to figure out the, full day preschool for four year olds.

And it would have it would have taken funds from a lot of local and community based providers who've been operating for years.

And it just didn't it didn't seem to us like it was ready for prime time.

At the same time, there's $100 million that's been sitting there for years waiting to be used.

So the at first when I when I heard the governor, I thought, well, she I honestly wondered, is she trying to legislate without the legislature?

But it looks like what she's doing is finally indeed, drawing on this 100 million that we've been saying, which we should use while leaving the other, the other programs intact for now.

So that seems like a pretty good interim solution.

So it sounds like your way a a better way to tackle the funding aspect of the policy goals that she was trying, at least.

That's right.

Yeah.

One thing that didn't get a lot of debate, but could have a big impact on the court system, is that the legislature voted to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 72 to 78, and if they're if you're a senior judge, which essentially means you continue working part time, you may continue working until the age of 84.

What what is your view on how that will impact the court system?

I think one of the concerns that we've seen year on year, particularly from, including from the chief justice when she gives her her condition to the court condition of the judiciary speech is the difficulty in, in attracting and in recruiting various different levels of people for the judiciary.

And one of them is judges.

So I think one of the concerns that this addresses is having enough judges in place as we as we work to fill it back, fill the pipeline, so that their people can, get due process so people can get justice.

I, you know, it's going to be up to individual judges if they want to continue to work probably a necessary measure right now because we're not getting enough candidates, and we know that all levels of the judiciary are stressed right now.

Moving on to politics.

Just a couple of questions.

In the couple minutes we have left.

In 2014, Democrats sort of anointed Bruce Braley to be the nominee to run against Joni Ernst for the US Senate.

Is it wise for Democrats to have a gubernatorial primary that basically has one person in it?

I don't know how many.

I mean, I hear I hear the question and I, I don't know if any other people are going to get into the race at this point.

I think primaries are healthy.

And I know that we're already seeing primaries in several races.

Right.

I, I think Rob Sand is a strong candidate, and I assume that there are other strong candidates who could come out.

Speaking of candidate recruitment, Democrats had some successful special elections here within the last few months for the legislature.

I'm wondering if there was anything that you took from those as far as candidate recruitment or messaging that you think can instruct how Democrats should approach the 2026 elections?

We we take we my, my colleagues and I, I guess take credit for the first of for the first of those special elections.

Soon late January, Mike Zimmer was elected in Senate District 35, flipping a seat that had gone to President Trump by 21 points and he was a really valuable colleague in the in the Senate.

I special elections are different than general elections.

And by by the same token, one of the reasons Mike won is because he was a really good candidate and, and given the short election span, focus basically on two issues that spoke to the people in the district.

That's what we've been trying to do.

That's what we as Senate Democrats tried to do all session long, was reflect what we heard on the doors last fall in terms of pocketbook issues, childcare, wages, the unemployment system, housing, nursing homes, clean water, just really trying to deal with mostly kitchen table issues that people really care about public schools.

And I think that and Mike, in his election focused on schools and on economic issues.

And I think that's probably a pretty good barometer for what we'll do in the future, understanding that we need candidates who fit the district.

Well we have to fit this into the time allotted, and we are out of time for this edition of Iowa Press.

Thanks for joining us today.

Thank you so much for having me.

You can watch every edition of Iowa Press online at Iowa PBS.org for everyone here at Iowa PBS.

Thanks for watching today.

Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses.

Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build.

Learn more at Iowa bankers.com.